Moving into my girlfriends council house

sulkisu

nannytone wrote: »

and would lose housing benefit because they would be over occupying.
i can't see someone that lives solely on benefit thinking this was a good idea.
in my area alone, there are 12 three bed houses that have been up for bidding for at least 5 months with no takers. probably as a result of the over occupancy rules.
i can't see anyone deliberately doing this can you?

But what you or I think is sensible isn't the issue. OP is clearly new to social housing. Having worked for a HA for 4 years, I am offering my insight, that's all. And TBH during my time working for the HA, I did see people do this. Not often admittedly, but a few times.


I was just pointing out to OP that simply saying that saying they are partners probably won't be enough for most RSL's. Tenants were often surprised when we asked for proof that the partner/elderly relative etc that they claimed was living with them was actually living there, or that their children were registered at their address.

As for benefits, they would lose HB because of his income (which OP says isn't an issue as this would happen if they lived together regardless of the property size), but if the relationship ended and he moved out, her benefits would be restored. I don't blame his partner for being cautious, and putting her children's security before her relationship - too many do the opposite.

FBaby

That's what the OP's partner is trying to do. Unfortunately, she is vulnerable because she's not working and is in social housing - this relationship could potentially cost her far more than the OP. I am sure they will find a way to make it work if they can.

And my point is that if indeed this is how she feels, then she should move in with OP and remain in separate households until she can either become financially secure or she is more confident that moving in with OP is the right thing to do financially. The issue is that she wants both the security and the benefit of a larger cheaper housing even though she is moving in with someone who doesn't financially need it.

However, if I remember correctly, your partner doesn't have children he would need to house and feed if his relationship with you should break down? And you yourself are financially stable in full time work on a good wage?

My OH would have a lot to lose financially if I decided to move to better pastures in a few years time. The point I was making is that he took a financial risk that could affect his stability too, but it was a risk he was prepared to take (and rightly so because the above will never happen).

nannytone_2

you aren't accepting that your OH tool that risk as a singleton...
would he have taken the same risk ( and potentially the same financial hit) if he had a couple of kids in tow and had been reliant on benefit?

[Deleted User]

I suggest the OP move in and be overcrowded and see how the relationship goes in these circumstances…if their relationship can survive this, it will survive anything.

Obviously this is not on the best interest of the children though.

I have only 1 child and I am very recently separated and rent in the private sector. I would never give up my independency again.

If I was in the OP's GF shoes, I would ask the OP to move as closer as possible to me and remain in a forever GF&BF relationship. Marriage is so overrated specially when you have been married before and have several kids with ex partners (not criticising, I have been 2 broken marriages myself). I, as the OP's girlfriend would be more then happy with a stable relationship with a partner living in a different house (ahhh my own bedroom and my own bed!) and doing a few sleep overs, nights out, holidays, family days out etc…

FBaby

nannytone wrote: »

you aren't accepting that your OH tool that risk as a singleton...
would he have taken the same risk ( and potentially the same financial hit) if he had a couple of kids in tow and had been reliant on benefit?

A financial risk is a financial risk, ie. something you would rather not have to lose whatever the consequences but you do because you trust your partner. As I have already said, the issue is not that she wants to be totally secure (no one is, even as a home owner), but that instead of just staying as she is until say OP ask her to marry him, they think they should be entitled to a secure larger property just so she remains secure if, only if, they were to separate.