Widows pension and co-habitating

margaretclare

mojos.revenge wrote: »

The lady in question is only sixty, so not yet entitled to Old Age Pension, she gets a small pension from her employer.

The house is hers so there wouldn't be any Housing benefit from the gentleman. He gets Pension Credit I think, the problem is neither of them are particularly up on the benefit system, that's why I think they should go to the CAB, that way they could tell them all that they would be entitled to.

They are not really bothered about marrying, it is actually his daughter who says they should marry, (she is married to a Pastor). I just don't want them to end up worse off.

Thanks

Thanks for clarifying. So, what they want to do is to move in together. He to move in with her, or she with him? I would imagine the former, as it's her house so no problems with renting.

Far be it for me to tell anyone they should marry, but there are certain advantages, certain legal matters e.g. being next-of-kin, certain rights gained on marriage, which may matter more in later life.

There used to be a phrase 'living over t'brush' which preceded cohabitating...

jamesd

I wonder whether she might find it useful to sell the house and buy a bungalow or flat? In older age she might find some movement restrictions and until then a flat or bungalow can be cheaper to heat and maintain, resulting in an increase in both quality of life and money availability.

atush

But, she does't need housing benefit. He probably gets it where he is now if unemployed. If he rents half her house, or one room, they may allow that as HB?

After all if they are sharing, and not sleeping together then he should be able to pay rent of some kind using his HB as it would be less than him having a one bed flat on his own? If his apartment where he is now is no longer available, surely the council has to house him somewhere?


And maragret, for you:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cohabiting

sleepless_saver

mojos.revenge wrote: »

The lady in question is only sixty, so not yet entitled to Old Age Pension, she gets a small pension from her employer.

The house is hers so there wouldn't be any Housing benefit from the gentleman. He gets Pension Credit I think, the problem is neither of them are particularly up on the benefit system, that's why I think they should go to the CAB, that way they could tell them all that they would be entitled to.

They are not really bothered about marrying, it is actually his daughter who says they should marry, (she is married to a Pastor). I just don't want them to end up worse off.

Thanks

I'm not clear what the relationship is. If he becomes a lodger, then her income won't affect his pension credit. If they are a couple living together then his pension credit will be reassessed on the basis of their joint income. It makes no difference if they are married or not.

Good idea to go to CAB and get a benefit check, but bear in mind the position will change when he starts to get his state pension.

margaretclare

Yes, I know about the verb 'to cohabit'. I also know about 'cohabiting' as in 'sharing a habitat'. What was new to me was 'cohabitating'. But, as someone else mentioned, this probably follows on from 'habitat'.

The 'relationship' does sound to be a bit unusual. They're 'very fond of each other'. But talking about him becoming her lodger, a business arrangement really? I believe the benefits people are very very sceptical about this kind of an arrangement, likely to visit and check that they really are living separately, ask about meals, shared hobbies etc, does she do his washing etc.

atush

I was saying I agreed with you and didn't think cohabitating was a real word lol. It is cohabiting.

If he pays and they are in sperate beds he is a lodger, despite if they share meals and she does his washing? My son is working and my lodger now, but I still do his washing (only because I have the time to do so).

The benefits people can be suspicious but if they have seperate bedrooms and he pays to live there they can't prove otherwise.

mojos.revenge

margaretclare wrote: »

Yes, I know about the verb 'to cohabit'. I also know about 'cohabiting' as in 'sharing a habitat'. What was new to me was 'cohabitating'. But, as someone else mentioned, this probably follows on from 'habitat'.

The 'relationship' does sound to be a bit unusual. They're 'very fond of each other'. But talking about him becoming her lodger, a business arrangement really? I believe the benefits people are very very sceptical about this kind of an arrangement, likely to visit and check that they really are living separately, ask about meals, shared hobbies etc, does she do his washing etc.

I guess it is a little unusual, but not unique, no different to a married couple having separate bedrooms.
It is difficult for me to clarify the connotations of their relationship, but from what I can gather, they intend to live as husband an wife, food, washing and leisure time, but he will have his own room. (I believe there to be medical issues ).

Her house is not terribly big, only two bedrooms, and a living room and kitchen, so there is no problem with size. I suppose the fact that they are sharing food and cooking facilities would mean that would be classed as a couple. The question of her pension is just the unsure area, because it is a widows pension, if she is living with him she is technically still a widow. I think this is getting too complicated for me now, CAB is certainly the way to go.

margaretclare

Medical issues - yes, we have those. There's still nothing to compare with having someone in the bed beside you, someone there if you get scared in the night, someone to reach out to and a hand to hold.

atush

If they have seperate bedrooms, but engage in intimate activities as man and wife (or whatever) would then no, she would lose the pension.

If he rented a room, and they lived together as lodger and good friends, then she might not. Sharing meals and costs in a house share does not mean cohabiting in that sense. Compare it with students or professionals sharing. They might share fun, food, and chores.

margaretclare

atush wrote: »

If they have seperate bedrooms, but engage in intimate activities as man and wife (or whatever) would then no, she would lose the pension.

If he rented a room, and they lived together as lodger and good friends, then she might not. Sharing meals and costs in a house share does not mean cohabiting in that sense. Compare it with students or professionals sharing. They might share fun, food, and chores.

We had to play this game for a while, until DH got divorced. We had to 'pretend' that he was my lodger. It was simpler for his ex to say 'he left me for another woman' rather than 'he left because of domestic violence, cruelty and ex was just impossible to live with'. All I did was to throw him a lifeline and for that, he is eternally grateful, but we didn't want my assets to be placed on the table as part of a divorce settlement.

The difference with us is: we're not 'very fond of each other'. We were, and are, in love with each other.

Having been through 2 unhappy marriages, he wasn't really keen on the idea of our marrying. I was. Goes back to my upbringing. He thought that marriage would put the kibosh on a happy and loving relationship. It hasn't. We're still together and still in love.