Payment of LHA to boyfriend as Landlord

Housing_Benefit_Officer

seasideme wrote: »

Wow, you want to effectively buy her a house and you're only "dating" wish I could find someone like you.

You would be in a very very vulnerable situation where the roof over your head would depend on continuing a relationship with your 'landlord' and if you did claim Housing Benefit and if the authorities discovered you were the landlords partner it would be you who would be prosecuted for fraud not the landlord and it would be you who would pay back any overpayment. Why do I feel the O/P is exploiting a very vulnerable individual for their own sexual and financial gain?

SunReader

What a shameless scrounging thread. Just make sure you don't get 'rinsed' by your soon to be common law wife...

To answer your question, yes, it happens all the time, just don't get caught.

FBaby

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

You would be in a very very vulnerable situation where the roof over your head would depend on continuing a relationship with your 'landlord' and if you did claim Housing Benefit and if the authorities discovered you were the landlords partner it would be you who would be prosecuted for fraud not the landlord and it would be you who would pay back any overpayment. Why do I feel the O/P is exploiting a very vulnerable individual for their own sexual and financial gain?

As said above, it could totally be the other way around. She decides she doesn't like OP any longer, dates someone else, stopped paying the rent to spend the HB partying with new boyfriend, and then destroying the place before she gets evicted. Either scenario is real in a 'dating' case, except we have all guessed that OP is not just dating the girl but in a serious relationship.

OldMotherTucker

Cautious_Optimist wrote: »

This would certainly be a simpler option. The problem is finding a LL who will accept LHA tenants.


Her current LL is a "dodgy" character and she wouldn't want to be asking him for references etc.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Soot2006

In our local news ...

Couple pretending to me LL and tenant, claiming benefits. Caught 7 years later!

http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11485764.Couple_who_falsely_claimed___113k_in_benefits_by_pretending_they_had_split_up_are_jailed_for_fraud/?ref=mr

dealer_wins

This thread, and the 1000s upon 1000s who dont post on MSE but milk the UK's weak benefit system, makes honest taxpayers wonder why they bother!!

tomtom256

I love how the story constantly changes to support your issues.

Why not mention the niece, the fact your only friends with "benefits" etc and give everyone the "true" story to begin with.

This way you would get the best advice to begin with!

DomRavioli

missapril75 wrote: »

You should be aware that when things like benefits are involved, certain words and expressions have legal definitions rather than every-day uses.

They would be classified as partners for the sake of benefits, in the legal definition; anyone could say they are "dating", but the reality is the OP is wanting to purchase a house, with the prime purpose of putting the person they are dating in it to claim LHA. That isn't dating, regardless of what the OP says; I've never met a sane person willing to purchase a house for someone to live in without there being a relationship of some sort there.

helping_hand2014

something not right about this

missapril75

DomRavioli wrote: »

They would be classified as partners for the sake of benefits

You see, that's exactly what I mean and where you're wrong.

For two people to be treated as a couple they have to share a household. There's a definition of a couple for benefit purposes and it is not just being in a relationship. It has to include sharing a household.

And then the benefit system defines a household.

For a couple claim, the two people involved have to be currently living in the same household or usually do but are temporarily living apart and will be together again.

It does mean that two people can marry, continue to live in the same separate households as before getting married and not be classed as a couple for benefit purposes because they don't and never did share a household.

Assuming the bits of information the OP has provided are the whole truth, they are not partners for benefit purposes. She can still claim ongoing benefits even though in a relationship.

Now this is not to say he can be her landlord and she can claim benefits for rent, this is just to say that because you call them partners doesn't mean they are, when it comes to benefits.

HBO is rightly suggesting it would be viewed as a contrived tenancy. The relationship is obviously a factor for that consideration. But it's the relationship that comes into it not you saying they are partners.