Compliance ...new baby!

bloolagoon

hips12 wrote: »

I see.
It's a bit of a minefield then isn't it.
All down to interpretation I guess.

Thanks
Hips

It is and her staying every weekend, holidays, shopping together, eating out together is part of that. For example you mentioned buying bunk beds. If she purchased them then that could be seen as evidence of living together as you don't buy furniture to sleep your children on a temporary basis. Likewise it doesn't prove living together either. It could be argued that her job as your carer is no different to many couples who have 1 parent who works away mon - Friday, using that address for correspondence.

I'm not attempting to scare you and I said earlier I don't see them as living together personally but just trying to give a heads up on what they may discuss with her and some understanding of what may be involved. You are allowed to be in a relationship and treat as single too. In fact too many IMO move in together too fast so I'd do exactly as your daughter is doing and exercise caution but as this thread shows it can lead to questions asked if they pick up an anomaly that indicates potentially living together.

Please update when you know more as posters can use this to advise others in similar situations.

hips12

merlin68 wrote: »

If they have evidence of spending weekends together, you might be up a creek if dwp have filmed them. sorry but to me they sound like a couple.
Doesn't matter if the joint account is empty. They look at all sorts of things, if you spend times as a family, if you go shopping or on holiday together. Its not just a case of living separately and having separate finances.

Sorry I must have missed your post.
As I said, they do not share their finances other than an empty SAVINGS account, they do not share bills, or the same roof for the majority of the time.
They could afford to live together with the help of working tax credits etc but my daughter does not want to live with him as she is my Carer, and my eldest grandson is settled at school and her partner could not afford to travel to work each day from here and basically she can't trust him with the finances anyway, and the council would have to upgrade him to a bigger property, which they won't do as he is often behind with his rent!!!
That doesn't mean she doesn't love him though, just that she isn't ready to move in with him.
If that makes her a fraud, other than being sensible for the sake of her children, then I guess yes she IS a fraud then

Thanks
Hips

Icequeen99

Some people have mentioned situations where married couples are apart.

First, the test is different between DWP and HMRC (for tax credits). DWP requires the couple to be living together as husband and wife in the same household and that married couples be part of the same household.

HMRC for tax credits don't require the couple to be in the same household.

So it could be that DWP and HMRC come to different decisions. All she can do is explain the situation and see what happens.

It does seem unfair however that a married couple who have to live apart and maintain two houses for work could be treated differently to an unmarried couple who are in every other way a couple.

IQ

hips12

bloolagoon wrote: »

It is and her staying every weekend, holidays, shopping together, eating out together is part of that. For example you mentioned buying bunk beds. If she purchased them then that could be seen as evidence of living together as you don't buy furniture to sleep your children on a temporary basis. Likewise it doesn't prove living together either. It could be argued that her job as your carer is no different to many couples who have 1 parent who works away mon - Friday, using that address for correspondence.

I'm not attempting to scare you and I said earlier I don't see them as living together personally but just trying to give a heads up on what they may discuss with her and some understanding of what may be involved. You are allowed to be in a relationship and treat as single too. In fact too many IMO move in together too fast so I'd do exactly as your daughter is doing and exercise caution but as this thread shows it can lead to questions asked if they pick up an anomaly that indicates potentially living together.

Please update when you know more as posters can use this to advise others in similar situations.

Sorry Bloolagoon, no I purchased the bunk beds as, on the weekends when he has his daughter to stay, my grandson had to sleep on the sofa in the same room as my daughter and her partner, bit awkward as he is almost 10.
As it is, it will be a problem when he is 10 as the council don't like opposite sex children sharing a room when one reaches 10 years old.

I will of course come back and update everyone after her interview in the hope of helping someone else, as you have all been such a help to us today.

Thanks again

Hips

hips12

Icequeen99 wrote: »

Some people have mentioned situations where married couples are apart.

First, the test is different between DWP and HMRC (for tax credits). DWP requires the couple to be living together as husband and wife in the same household and that married couples be part of the same household.

HMRC for tax credits don't require the couple to be in the same household.

So it could be that DWP and HMRC come to different decisions. All she can do is explain the situation and see what happens.

It does seem unfair however that a married couple who have to live apart and maintain two houses for work could be treated differently to an unmarried couple who are in every other way a couple.

IQ

I guess I have an old fashioned interpretation of "couple", it must be my age lol.
I think if 2 people are married or living together 24 / 7, sharing finances etc then yes I would call them a couple.
If they were only boyfriend and girlfriend, who accidentally had a child, but weren't living together or sharing finances in any way, got together at weekends so the father could see his child, but the mother had a separate life, separate address, separate school for her child, separate Drs surgeries etc etc then I'm not sure for the interpretation of the benefits system that I would call them a couple.
My late husband and I shared everything, it all went into one pot to pay the bills, the shopping, holidays etc.
We would never have had separate accounts for his money and my money, but I appreciate that times have changed.
They have no say over each other's income.
Granted he should be paying for his child, don't get me started, but what he earns barely covers his rent and bills each week, whereas, yes, thanks to the state my daughter lives comfortably but she is doing a job for the government as my carer.
She doesn't smoke or drink, the big telly is mine (because my eyesight isn't so good lol ) and the car is paid for from my dla...she borrows her brothers car to go to boyfriends leaving my car here.
I appreciate your input anyway.

Thanks
Hips

Icequeen99

hips12 wrote: »

I guess I have an old fashioned interpretation of "couple", it must be my age lol.
I think if 2 people are married or living together 24 / 7, sharing finances etc then yes I would call them a couple.
If they were only boyfriend and girlfriend, who accidentally had a child, but weren't living together or sharing finances in any way, got together at weekends so the father could see his child, but the mother had a separate life, separate address, separate school for her child, separate Drs surgeries etc etc then I'm not sure for the interpretation of the benefits system that I would call them a couple.
My late husband and I shared everything, it all went into one pot to pay the bills, the shopping, holidays etc.
We would never have had separate accounts for his money and my money, but I appreciate that times have changed.
They have no say over each other's income.
Granted he should be paying for his child, don't get me started, but what he earns barely covers his rent and bills each week, whereas, yes, thanks to the state my daughter lives comfortably but she is doing a job for the government as my carer.
She doesn't smoke or drink, the big telly is mine (because my eyesight isn't so good lol ) and the car is paid for from my dla...she borrows her brothers car to go to boyfriends leaving my car here.
I appreciate your input anyway.

Thanks
Hips

I understand that. But from what you say they aren't just getting together at weekends so he can see his children. In other words, the children are not going to his house and your daughter staying with you, they are staying together as a couple at his house on a weekend.

It really isn't clear cut in this situation - it just comes down to the decision maker on the day applying the DWP guidance and making a judgement call. I suspect they will say they are not living together and all will be fine, but as I say it does create some unfairness for couples who are forced apart (e.g. during to caring or other issues) and who exist in exactly the same way as your daughter and her partner. To me he seems to be more than a boyfriend, but I can see the other arguments as well.

IQ

hips12

Icequeen99 wrote: »

I understand that. But from what you say they aren't just getting together at weekends so he can see his children. In other words, the children are not going to his house and your daughter staying with you, they are staying together as a couple at his house on a weekend.

It really isn't clear cut in this situation - it just comes down to the decision maker on the day applying the DWP guidance and making a judgement call. I suspect they will say they are not living together and all will be fine, but as I say it does create some unfairness for couples who are forced apart (e.g. during to caring or other issues) and who exist in exactly the same way as your daughter and her partner. To me he seems to be more than a boyfriend, but I can see the other arguments as well.



IQ

No problem Icequeen99, I completely agree with the unfairness of the system.
Yes they do get time together at weekends, school holidays are rarer it depends if my son has time off work to be around for me.
My daughter will be totally honest with them, we are not hiding anything, but they may decide that the weekends together go against them, and that is fair enough.
If she loses benefit because of their weekends together then she will have to accept that.
The basic premise of my post was are they doing anything wrong, because I cant see that they are ...surely it is good to make a relationship work for the child's sake ...but by the same token it is right that if the DWP or Tax Credit people have concerns, they should call her in to explain her situation.

Thanks again

Hips

hips12

Just to add that her appointment is on 3rd March so will update then.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed here.

Hips

FBaby

They could afford to live together with the help of working tax credits etc but my daughter does not want to live with him as she is my Carer, and my eldest grandson is settled at school and her partner could not afford to travel to work each day from here and basically she can't trust him with the finances anyway,

Try to see it from the tax payers perspective. What you are saying is that because he can't afford to travel to see his daughter from a previous relationship, because he can't manage his money properly, it is acceptable for your daughter to receive benefits from the tax payers so she can afford to go and visit him every week-end.

The fact that she can't trust him with money is not a good enough reason to choose to claim benefits rather than both of them learning to accept their responsibilities towards all their children.

It is easy to see it as a good decision for everyone when it is others who have to pay for it. If she were to lose her benefits as a single parent, wouldn't they try to make it work together and learn to manage their money better?

hips12

T

FBaby wrote: »

Try to see it from the tax payers perspective. What you are saying is that because he can't afford to travel to see his daughter from a previous relationship, because he can't manage his money properly, it is acceptable for your daughter to receive benefits from the tax payers so she can afford to go and visit him every week-end.

The fact that she can't trust him with money is not a good enough reason to choose to claim benefits rather than both of them learning to accept their responsibilities towards all their children.

It is easy to see it as a good decision for everyone when it is others who have to pay for it. If she were to loose her benefits as a single parents, wouldn't they try to make it work together and learn to manage their money better?

Sorry, if you read my earlier post you will see that my daughter is my Carer and also is the registered user of my Motobility car, without her I cannot leave the house, therefore she cannot live more than 5 miles from me, her boyfriend lives 20 miles away.
As my carer, and a mother, she is entitled to benefits ....I don't make the rules.
I am also a tax payer, I receive my late husbands work pension, he dropped dead at 49 years old having worked hard all his life.
I stayed at home until my children were old enough to fend for themselves then I went to work, until I became ill.
Try having a go at the rich people and companies who avoid their taxes instead of a mother who is trying to put her children's security ahead of her own relationship...or the companies who get away without paying decent wages so fathers can afford to support their children.
She also moved in with me, handing back her 2 bed council property, so do not try to tell me she has no social conscience!
Hips