We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Payment of LHA to boyfriend as Landlord
Comments
-
missapril75 wrote: »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.
Yes, this is correct.
I looked into it, when I took in a lodger on LHA.
The benefits dept use ''partner'', but also another term called ''LTAMC'' - Living Together As Married Couple.
The OP and his GF are in a ''close personal relationship'', but are not ''partners'' - unless they live together AND share their finances etc.
''Partner'' seems to be the term for ''common law wife'' - which many people will say doesn't exist - but actually does!0 -
Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »The tenancy would be contrived and non commercial and you are in a relationship with your tenant. People have been successfully prosecuted for benefit fraud for having the exact same arrangement you are proposing.
What if the tenant wasn't on benefits?
Would it still be illegal then?0 -
-
-
Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: ». Why do I feel the O/P is exploiting a very vulnerable individual for their own sexual
I'm presuming the OP and his GF are already sleeping together...?
So I don't see how any new tenancy can then be ''exploitation''...?0 -
So in simple terms does this mean that as long as two partners, however committed they are to each other, are clever enough to know never to make to move in together in the first place they will be fine as opposed to a couple who are much less committed but who made the error to share a household for a couple of months (or less) in the past? What a logical and sensible rule!0
-
In the context of prosecuting for benefit fraud...
...it seems to be the same as ''partner'' or ''Living Together As Married Couple'' (LTAMC).
That's my point - it may not officially exist, but people can still be prosecuted for it!
The benefit rules are specific and use "partner" and "LTAMC"; they don't mention common law husband or wife.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards