Widows pension and co-habitating

Mojisola

atush wrote: »

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.

It is a grey area. Part of the definition of a lodger, rather than a subtenant, is that he/she shares living space with the LL. Many lodgers also have meals provided by the LL and have cleaning and washing done for them.
http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/renting_and_leasehold/sharing_and_subletting/lodgers#what%27s_the_difference_between_a_lodger_and_a_subtenant%3F

When young, a friend of mine had these extras provided for him in return for occasional bedroom favours with his landlady but they definitely weren't a couple!

mojos.revenge

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.

So the bottom line is providing they don't have sex she can keep her pension and say he is a lodger. As he will have his own room I can see no problem then. Just have to hope that the DWP don't send a spy to sit at the end of their beds to ensure they don't get it on. :rotfl:

It is a very difficult thing to prove after all, although I am guessing that there is a lot of presumption on behalf of the DWP, they clearly assume that living under the same roof means having sex. That is more often not the case though as couple get older, so I guess they just have to believe what people say.

margaretclare

mojos.revenge wrote: »

So the bottom line is providing they don't have sex she can keep her pension and say he is a lodger. As he will have his own room I can see no problem then. Just have to hope that the DWP don't send a spy to sit at the end of their beds to ensure they don't get it on. :rotfl:

It is a very difficult thing to prove after all, although I am guessing that there is a lot of presumption on behalf of the DWP, they clearly assume that living under the same roof means having sex. That is more often not the case though as couple get older, so I guess they just have to believe what people say.

Yes, the DWP did not believe it about us, even though there was a spare bed/spare bedroom and DH was unemployed at the time. They couldn't prove it, though!

Sharing a bed is very nice even if having sex is impossible.

Dunroamin

Having come back to this thread after a gap, I have to say that some of the suggestions are getting pretty close to benefit fraud. I wonder if people would be quite as sympathetic if this was a young woman and baby pretending she wasn't co habiting with her working partner so she could claim lone parent benefits?

atush

mojos.revenge wrote: »

So the bottom line is providing they don't have sex she can keep her pension and say he is a lodger. As he will have his own room I can see no problem then. Just have to hope that the DWP don't send a spy to sit at the end of their beds to ensure they don't get it on. :rotfl:

It is a very difficult thing to prove after all, although I am guessing that there is a lot of presumption on behalf of the DWP, they clearly assume that living under the same roof means having sex. That is more often not the case though as couple get older, so I guess they just have to believe what people say.

The bottom line is, if they are not sharing a bed, and are not intimate (in any form even if not full intercourse etc) then yes the pension is safe.

If they are intimate, but pretending they aren't, then that could be considered fraud I suppose. I also think they can't tell. Use your (their) best conscience/judgement.

Mojisola

mojos.revenge wrote: »

It's not me, I am enquiring for someone else.
I don't think the male is in a position to financially contribute to the household.

The living together is for company not sexual favours, so I would imagine they will have separate bedrooms.

Difficult situation.

Dunroamin wrote: »

Having come back to this thread after a gap, I have to say that some of the suggestions are getting pretty close to benefit fraud. I wonder if people would be quite as sympathetic if this was a young woman and baby pretending she wasn't co habiting with her working partner so she could claim lone parent benefits?

If the couple concerned were two friends of the same sex house-sharing for companionship and support, the one moving in wouldn't be expected to become financially responsible for the other. It depends on exactly what the relationship is.

ViolaLass

mojos.revenge wrote: »

So the bottom line is providing they don't have sex she can keep her pension and say he is a lodger. As he will have his own room I can see no problem then. Just have to hope that the DWP don't send a spy to sit at the end of their beds to ensure they don't get it on. :rotfl:

It is a very difficult thing to prove after all, although I am guessing that there is a lot of presumption on behalf of the DWP, they clearly assume that living under the same roof means having sex. That is more often not the case though as couple get older, so I guess they just have to believe what people say.

You seem a bit obsessed with the idea of couples who do or do not have sex. My husband and I have sex but I don't think that is the defining feature that makes us a couple as opposed to two people who share a house.

When he was briefly injured and we couldn't have sex, I still considered us to be a couple.

Freecall

ViolaLass wrote: »

You seem a bit obsessed with the idea of couples who do or do not have sex. My husband and I have sex but I don't think that is the defining feature that makes us a couple as opposed to two people who share a house.

When he was briefly injured and we couldn't have sex, I still considered us to be a couple.

I have to say that I tend to agree.

Many happily married couples have not had sex or even shared a bed for years.

The problem is that the institution we call marriage is so multi-faceted and ill defined that it is hard to pin down with rules. Ultimately it boils down to a combination of how those in the relationship see themselves and how society as a whole views it.

When it comes to benefits someone, somewhere has to pigeon hole each individual situation though. That in itself requires a great deal of wisdom and common-sense, if you overlay the possibility of fraud it must become virtually impossible.

My advice, tell the world (and the state) how you see your relationship and let them challenge it in court if they really want to.

Dunroamin

Mojisola wrote: »

If the couple concerned were two friends of the same sex house-sharing for companionship and support, the one moving in wouldn't be expected to become financially responsible for the other. It depends on exactly what the relationship is.

But LTAHAW is far more than sharing a bed as you'll know from the Benefits Board and the rules apply equally to same sex couples.

Mojisola

Dunroamin wrote: »

But LTAHAW is far more than sharing a bed as you'll know from the Benefits Board and the rules apply equally to same sex couples.

I didn't mean a same sex couple - I meant what I said - "two friends of the same sex". It used to be fairly common for a couple of older people to share a house when they got older in order to save money and be company for each other.