Payment of LHA to boyfriend as Landlord

New_User

FBaby wrote: »

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!

Yes. As far as I can tell...

New_User

Mojisola wrote: »

The benefit rules are specific and use "partner" and "LTAMC"; they don't mention common law husband or wife.

That's right.
It seems to me that "partner" is a new, "official" name, for what many people would refer to as a "common law wife"...

It seems to be a different word, for exactly the same thing...

...Or am I wrong...?

Mojisola

New_User wrote: »

That's right.
It seems to me that "partner" is a new, "official" name, for what many people would refer to as a "common law wife"...

It seems to be a different word, for exactly the same thing...

"Common law wife or husband" implies that the unmarried partners have the same rights in law as a married couple. They have responsibilities towards each other when they are claiming benefits but have none of the legal protection that marriage gives a couple.

missapril75

FBaby wrote: »

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!

Probably not very committed if they don't want to live together. But there's not much to gain by maintaining two households anyway.

It's not that common a situation. I came across it once in 30 years and that was a case of a couple of teens. She got pregnant, he married her - not shying away from responsibilities - but she couldn't live with him at his parents. Her mum kicked her out for being pregnant and the local authority temporarily housed her in B&B but not him as he wasn't homeless.

So it wasn't even a situation where circumstances were adjusted to suit a claim. Eventually she got properly housed, they moved in together and lived happily ever after. :j

FBaby

Probably not very committed if they don't want to live together. But there's not much to gain by maintaining two households anyway.

Of course there is much to gain when one partner is claiming as a single parent and would they move in together, they would lose all the tax credits if the partner earns too much to claim jointly.

As for not being committed if not living together, I think people manage very well being together for years, producing kids together,but somehow pretending not to be committed to each other... that was the case in the programme about large families and the one women who had 10+ kids with the same man, but somehow they never got to actually moving in together.

missapril75

FBaby wrote: »

Of course there is much to gain when one partner is claiming as a single parent and would they move in together, they would lose all the tax credits if the partner earns too much to claim jointly

Well, yes, but then you also have to take into account the costs and problems of maintaining the two households.

northerntwo1

missapril75 wrote: »

Well, yes, but then you also have to take into account the costs and problems of maintaining the two households.

If a very low earner I'd agree. If earning higher than NMW it's advantageous especially if HB pays mortgage and regular overnight "stays". Best of both worlds

missapril75

northerntwo1 wrote: »

If a very low earner I'd agree. If earning higher than NMW it's advantageous especially if HB pays mortgage and regular overnight "stays". Best of both worlds

A lot depends on lifestyle (and whether owner occupied/rented/what's included) of course but 2 electric/gas bills, 2 water bills, 2 property tax bills, 2 lots of upkeep/maintenance, double the chance of a need for cooker replacement, 2 lots of insurance, double the chance of break in - actually, probably more than that if you're at "the other place" - 2 empty places to worry about when you're both away, one of you always having to travel to the other and back again and associated transport costs while doing so, 2 TV licences etc

Then there's the problems caused when others resent what you're doing and show it.....or someone reports you.....

Not to mention karma getting back at you in some other way :eek:

FBaby

A lot depends on lifestyle (and whether owner occupied/rented/what's included) of course but 2 electric/gas bills, 2 water bills, 2 property tax bills, 2 lots of upkeep/maintenance, double the chance of a need for cooker replacement, 2 lots of insurance, double the chance of break in - actually, probably more than that if you're at "the other place" - 2 empty places to worry about when you're both away, one of you always having to travel to the other and back again and associated transport costs while doing so, 2 TV licences etc

Not when you spend so much time at each other's house anyway. 3 days at one, 2 days at the other, and only 2 days apart. If one is claiming HB, council tax reduction and full tax credits, they will be much better off than losing all of it. There was a SOA recently from a lady who posted a couple years ago when she was with her partner, and now as a single parent and she had much more disposable income as a single mother then they had combined before.

If as a single parent you can earn the equivalent of £20K + tax free and you would lose all this if moving with a partner who earns too much to claim, it is a lot of money to lose that won't be made up by sharing bills and the rest.

New_User

Each case will be different...
But there's something to be said for having your own space, peace and quiet when you want it.