Informing dwp living with partner

Morglin

Yeah, all a bit odd.

But, if it is right, sort out what they are alleging, and can prove, and then go from there.

Lin

rogerblack

Poppie68 wrote: »

It's only bad advice if they haven't been living together....the legalities of living together isn't as complicated as some people believe, the guidlines are out there for people to read and understand, if not a phone call can clear up any questions they may have.

Unfortunately, my understanding is that this is incorrect.
'A phone call' - relies on the person on the other end giving the correct answer - something which we might hope always happens, but doesn't always.
Getting the 'hoped-for' answer does not mean that you are then safe if that answer was wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/286748/fraud-guide-mar-14.pdf

If it is 'not complicated' - then why is the guidance for staff ten whole pages beginning on page 626. (and assorted other bits scattered through the document)

As some examples - it's perfectly legal and correct to declare youself as single from a means-tested benefits point-of-view if you have children with someone and are in an enduring public relationship with them - as long as you have never shared a home.

Or to have joint bank accounts, cook together, live together, go out together with someone, as long as there is no 'romantic' element to the relationship.

The common 'rules of thumb' that are bandied around 'no more than three nights a week' - have no legal meaning whatsoever.

help4help2013

seek legal advice

Poppie68

rogerblack wrote: »

Unfortunately, my understanding is that this is incorrect.
'A phone call' - relies on the person on the other end giving the correct answer - something which we might hope always happens, but doesn't always.
Getting the 'hoped-for' answer does not mean that you are then safe if that answer was wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/286748/fraud-guide-mar-14.pdf

If it is 'not complicated' - then why is the guidance for staff ten whole pages beginning on page 626. (and assorted other bits scattered through the document)

As some examples - it's perfectly legal and correct to declare youself as single from a means-tested benefits point-of-view if you have children with someone and are in an enduring public relationship with them - as long as you have never shared a home.

Or to have joint bank accounts, cook together, live together, go out together with someone, as long as there is no 'romantic' element to the relationship.

The common 'rules of thumb' that are bandied around 'no more than three nights a week' - have no legal meaning whatsoever.

It's complicated if someone is anal enough to want to sit through pages and pages of repeated carp written by someone with an inflated income...:)
There are numerous ways a couple can be defined as a couple for benefit purposes and they are all simple reasons. The days of confusion and ignorance have long gone, and making a phone call can be as good place to start as asking for written information..mistakes are often made on both sides by phone or in writing so the onus should be on yourself to dig up the correct info..therefore there shouldn't be any excuses of ignorance.
People need to be proactive in dealing with these matters and if in doubt call up and discuss/admit their living arrangements as not doing so could lead to a charge of benefit fraud.

Poppie68

bloolagoon wrote: »

Not really - they inform them they are in a relationship with person b - quick check shows person b has been "living" there (or at least a paper trail) for some time. The living together claim showed it up.

It's more strange to gave your mail sent to an on off partner as opposed to where you live don't you think. They have never "lived together" so strange to move list there.

The main postal point that jumps out at me is the car insurance. Who would have their car insurance registered at an address that they only stay at now and again.....is that even legal? Don't you have to give your true and correct address otherwise your policy could be invalidated?

lighting_up_the_chalice

Morglin wrote: »

Yeah, all a bit odd.

But, if it is right, sort out what they are alleging, and can prove, and then go from there.

Lin

So, the best advice you can offer is to try and weasel out of as many responsibilities as possible. Telling the truth is the option of last resort.

rogerblack

Morglin wrote: »

Yeah, all a bit odd.

But, if it is right, sort out what they are alleging, and can prove, and then go from there.

Lin

This is misleading to many.
Yes, they have to prove it.
However, they have to prove it 'to the balance of probabilities' - that is - they have to show that it is more likely than not that it is the case.
They only have to prove it 'beyond all reasonable doubt' - if they decide to prosecute.