Married but living separately?

ACEJ_2

Mojisola wrote: »

The bit in bold covers all the other situations.

Thank you but that is not how I or many others would interpret that definition. In your scenario if that father of 7 was genuinely not living with the mother and children, whether they are in a relationship or not how does "if you are living with someone else as if you are married or in a civil partnership" apply? My point being, they are NOT living together, they are NOT married. Yes he is legally required to pay her child maintenance but if they choose to live apart for whatever reasons and he is not prepared to financially support his partner (due to not being committed to her by marriage and or/expense of living elsewhere) what is that mother of 7 supposed to do? (I imagine in that particular scenario the father is unlikely to be paying her the required amount of maintenance either). If one partner is not prepared to support the other what is the person on limited income supposed to do? If the HMRC have other criteria for defining couples they should make it clear. The further information and examples on their website still do not cover situations of non-married couples living apart. I am interested Mojisola if your comments are based on your interpretation or you have reason to know they are fact. I am most appreciative of your comments by the way and if they are based on fact that will be exceedingly useful to many in this situation. Thanks!

Mojisola

ACEJ wrote: »

Thank you but that is not how I or many others would interpret that definition.

It doesn't matter how any of us interpret the definition - it's the way the DWP interprets it that counts.

ACEJ_2

That may be so but if venerable people were in a position to challenge I think they could prove them wrong. This implies that the DWP/HMRC are making the rules up as they go along without actually informing the people it is most affecting. People are being put in the position of making legal declarations based without having access to the information to what they are signing. I hope the new universal credits sorts out all these ambiguities out once and for all but I'm not holding my breath! If you are interested in my own interest in this, i'm just feeling like a bit of a mug for not looking into this many years ago and being better off for it. The current climate is making people scared to even make a benifits claim for fear of inadvertantly getting it wrong. Thanks once again for your input. (back to the original subject of this thread, the couple in question are legally married and not legally or permenantly separated so I do nt think there is any ambiguity there).

Prothet_of_Doom

I found that my marriage improved as soon as I started working away from home 4 nights a week, and only being at home at weekends.

tinkerbell28

I just saw this and thought of op.

I know it's a Daily Mail link, I'd been shown an article from there and this caught my eye.

Married living apart.

She has her house and is claiming as single. He has his own digs at base, which he will pay rent/rates/board for. So living apart for most of the week. As they are married, they're married. Even if he is away elsewhere 5 nights a week!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2561189/Real-life-Shameless-Benefit-cheat-cousin-actor-plays-Lip-Gallagher-Channel-4-comedy-swindled-20-000-pretending-single-marrying-soldier.html

These statements from the prosecution are interesting...

: 'It’s a set of circumstances that millions of people across the country have to endure. People work away during the week. It does not mean they were not living as husband and wife.'


'The idea that people can be married part-time is simply ridiculous. It’s a legally binding contract.'



Careful op! All the holiday bookings, etc, etc saw them convicted and were used against them!

ACEJ_2

Thanks tinkerbell, interesting (despite it being DM!). Yes they were married so yes obviously she should have declared it regardless of living arrangements. So does that mean that whilst they were dating / engaged prior to being married her claim was valid? Also why did the DWP need to use facebook and documents siezed from her house as evidence? Surely a marriage can be easily proved from a legal register of births marriages and deaths. Is it even acceptable to claim as single if you are in any kind of relationship even with someone you don't live with, or what if you live with someone who you are not in a relationship with, eg flatmate, lodger etc?

tinkerbell28

ACEJ wrote: »

Thanks tinkerbell, interesting (despite it being DM!). Yes they were married so yes obviously she should have declared it regardless of living arrangements. So does that mean that whilst they were dating / engaged prior to being married her claim was valid? Also why did the DWP need to use facebook and documents siezed from her house as evidence? Surely a marriage can be easily proved from a legal register of births marriages and deaths. Is it even acceptable to claim as single if you are in any kind of relationship even with someone you don't live with, or what if you live with someone who you are not in a relationship with, eg flatmate, lodger etc?

Well that's another story. Plenty of military types get their gf pregnant, live on camp and go to their girlfriends house the weekend....mainly getting away with claiming as single. Generally non marriages aren't recognised. I believe it says upon marriage her status changed and it should've been declared. So I think that answers that.

The problem is with regards to HMRC at least....If you are MARRIED. You're a couple for benefits purposes. Even if you live apart. The only exception is if you legally, officially separate. LATS is common now.

I imagine reading that article briefly and it is the DM. The DWP take a similar view as they formed part of the prosecution.

The reason they use evidence like that is because they said they were single. However they prosecuted as clearly they believed living apart or not, as a married couple they should be claiming as a couple.

Which say in ops case, HMRC come a knocking about her single parent benefits. She's already admitted here that they've taken family holidays, etc. THAT is the kind of thing they will use in a benefits fraud prosecution, to prove you are actually still very much a "married couple" playing the system, not in fact separated.

It was explained all through out the thread. The separate houses and nights apart actually mean nothing. As some and op falsely believe. If they cotton on to the fact you're together, they'll start digging and stuff like that will get you bang to rights.

These people were very silly, it's drummed into you that living apart or not, you're married.

madison-nyc

tinkerbell28 wrote: »

Well that's another story. Plenty of military types get their gf pregnant, live on camp and go to their girlfriends house the weekend....mainly getting away with claiming as single. Generally non marriages aren't recognised. I believe it says upon marriage her status changed and it should've been declared. So I think that answers that.

The problem is with regards to HMRC at least....If you are MARRIED. You're a couple for benefits purposes. Even if you live apart. The only exception is if you legally, officially separate. LATS is common now.

I imagine reading that article briefly and it is the DM. The DWP take a similar view as they formed part of the prosecution.

The reason they use evidence like that is because they said they were single. However they prosecuted as clearly they believed living apart or not, as a married couple they should be claiming as a couple.

Which say in ops case, HMRC come a knocking about her single parent benefits. She's already admitted here that they've taken family holidays, etc. THAT is the kind of thing they will use in a benefits fraud prosecution, to prove you are actually still very much a "married couple" playing the system, not in fact separated.

It was explained all through out the thread. The separate houses and nights apart actually mean nothing. As some and op falsely believe. If they cotton on to the fact you're together, they'll start digging and stuff like that will get you bang to rights.

These people were very silly, it's drummed into you that living apart or not, you're married.

It really isn't that clear cut/black and white. When a married couple separate you don't instantly become divorced, therefore, there is a period where you are still married before divorcing or reconciling. HMRC and DWP both recognise this fact hence when calling HMRC to make them aware my husband had left the marital home there was no question over me starting a single claim despite still being married.


The story in the daily fail (do you actually read that?!) is nothing like my situation as the claimant got married whilst claiming as a single and failed to declare that. Completely different situation.

JIL

I thought this was a relationships thread?

What has the benefits side of it got to do with the thread?
Living together has loads of things to be taken into account for DWP as you can see from here
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/251390/dmg-vol3-ch11.pdf

tinkerbell28

madison-nyc wrote: »

It really isn't that clear cut/black and white. When a married couple separate you don't instantly become divorced, therefore, there is a period where you are still married before divorcing or reconciling. HMRC and DWP both recognise this fact hence when calling HMRC to make them aware my husband had left the marital home there was no question over me starting a single claim despite still being married.


The story in the daily fail (do you actually read that?!) is nothing like my situation as the claimant got married whilst claiming as a single and failed to declare that. Completely different situation.

Have you actually read their classifications as what constitutes a couple or not? It is black and white.

Tax credits..


You're married or in a civil partnership - and you're both in the UK
Make a joint claim - unless one of the following applies, in which case make a single claim:
you are separated under a court order
you are separated and this is likely to be permanent
Civil partnerships are the equivalent of marriage for same-sex couples.

You aren't legally separated. Nor a you infact separated with a likelihood of it being permanent. Maybe in the beginning, but not for a while now. Family holidays, staying over, reconciling. You regard yourself as married, wear your ring, have a relationship. That's all stuff as you've been told a benefits fraud prosecution will hold against you.

They give you a bit of leeway, as yes they're human, to stop hardship in genuine cases of separation, but in fact unless you're legally separated, or making steps to make it permanent (you're doing the opposite) they class you very much as still a couple.

It's there in black and white. You didn't go on to separate. You're married, not legally separated and acting as a married couple, just apart.

There is nothing different about your situation. Two different beginnings that all.

They failed to declare marriage. Which means once they became legally married they were a COUPLE for benefits purposes. As what did they say "people can't be married part time". Their relationship status changed.

You have been married all along, your legal status hasn't changed so your legal status is married. You haven't gone through a legal separation after he left the marital home. So for some time now, you've been doing exactly what they have. Building your relationship, going on family holidays, etc.

As the thread of your title, married - but living separately.

You're in exactly the same position as them. It's fraud. The longer you deny it and the longer you carry on, the bigger trouble you'll end up in.

It's relevant, as if you read the thread it's been mentioned several times. They are sustaining two houses by fraudulently claiming ops single. Whether she accepts that or not. She isn't and that may have an impact on affordability of running two households.