Renting property to husband when separated?

benniebert

Mojisola wrote: »

That's not how the means tested benefit system works.

They are married so everything that the couple have is counted. They are not two unconnected individuals.

They ARE married but for the purposes of benefits they are separated. She will live in the family home paid for by her and he in the new flat also paid for by her. They will lead totally independent lives apart from the wife will be looking after him as she probably would just the same as a friend. You can be married but under the right circumstances you can be treated as two single people - that is what she is trying to do and there is nothing wrong with that in my opinion.


However if you want to talk about divorce settlements that is entirely a different subject. One that isn't being discussed.

benniebert

NYM wrote: »

I'm curious... i wonder what some of the responses might have been if the person losing their home was the wife ?

Is it material to the question in hand?

benniebert

Marisco wrote: »

It would probably be along the lines of "go for everything you're entitled to, which could be 50% of all assets" It's always double standards depending on who's asking! It's the same on the marriage board as well!

Once again you are discussing what a possible financial settlement would be on a divorce. This isn't what we are discussing. Please keep to the OP's question.


And in reply, most if not all men wouldn't care what they would get out of a divorce settlement. The woman generally would be financially supported by the wife. In which case it would only be proper to make a decent provision for her on divorce. However in this case the guy is a kept man, he owns nowt, and doesn't have an income. Given that it was his wife's money that has kept him, as a guy, I would expect any decent man to give her what she has paid for back in the settlement. The old saying: you come in with nowt and you leave with nowt!

lighting_up_the_chalice

benniebert wrote: »

Given that it was his wife's money that has kept him, as a guy, I would expect any decent man to give her what she has paid for back in the settlement. The old saying: you come in with nowt and you leave with nowt!

All well and good. But the OP's question effectively asks what WE, as taxpayers, are able to pay HER to keep her husband, and if she can make a profit from it. If you are comfortable with that, you may be in the minority.

FBaby

Sorry but what on earth has that got to do with the OP's question? Why do YOU hope not? Your definition of what constitutes a marriage does not have to be what others believe in. I don't think that the OP wants to hear what your personal opinion is - maybe a sensible answer to the original question, but not an opinion on how they live their lives.

At least I don't give ludicrous advice! Or maybe you are saying that all those wives who stay at home to raise the children whose husband work away should be able to claim HB on the marital home which can be rented from the husband to the wife because they are 'separated' during the week.

Or maybe your accept that 'separated' is in the eye of the beholder, so saying that you are separated, even though you still spend most of your time together and do intend on getting back together at some point, ie. not divorcing is enough to justify people with large capital should still be entitled to claim HB.

And of course, that wouldn't be at all open to abuse

tomtontom

NYM wrote: »

I'm curious... i wonder what some of the responses might have been if the person losing their home was the wife ?

I treated the question as if it was the wife, but then mine probably wasn't the response you were querying It is a valid point as the husband's incapacity puts him very much in the position of a stay at home wife/ homemaker or whatever the term is nowadays.

helping_hand2014

benniebert wrote: »

Once again you are discussing what a possible financial settlement would be on a divorce. This isn't what we are discussing. Please keep to the OP's question.


And in reply, most if not all men wouldn't care what they would get out of a divorce settlement. The woman generally would be financially supported by the wife. In which case it would only be proper to make a decent provision for her on divorce. However in this case the guy is a kept man, he owns nowt, and doesn't have an income. Given that it was his wife's money that has kept him, as a guy, I would expect any decent man to give her what she has paid for back in the settlement. The old saying: you come in with nowt and you leave with nowt!

"And in reply, most if not all men wouldn't care what they would get out of a divorce settlement" eerr says who? from a woman's point i dont agree with that statement at all

However in this case the guy is a kept man, he owns nowt, and doesn't have an income. the OP said "He has never worked and is not in a position to do so" and also "My husband has mental health problems, and I am trying to assure him of a safe and secure environment to keep him safe " just because he cannot work due to his illnesses/disabilities does not make him a kept man . he cant work due to his mental health issues .

the OP is buying the property from her inheritance only as there will be no mortgage on the property im sure if the husband had inheritance with the help of his wife or family he might do the same . but someone who is married to another person who claims benefit due to having mental health problems is not a kept person im sure his benefits contributed to the relationship bills ect ect

benniebert

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

All well and good. But the OP's question effectively asks what WE, as taxpayers, are able to pay HER to keep her husband, and if she can make a profit from it. If you are comfortable with that, you may be in the minority.

She isn't. She is asking if he could, after their separation, rent a property to live in and claim housing benefit as he doesn't work and doesn't have an income. Where or how the property came about in this example has nothing to do with it as long as it isn't a property that they have lived in together, that they are separated and that it is let on a commercial basis.


I have no objection to my taxes being used to help they guy pay his rent. I don't care who the landlord is and it doesn't really matter.

benniebert

FBaby wrote: »

At least I don't give ludicrous advice! Or maybe you are saying that all those wives who stay at home to raise the children whose husband work away should be able to claim HB on the marital home which can be rented from the husband to the wife because they are 'separated' during the week.

Or maybe your accept that 'separated' is in the eye of the beholder, so saying that you are separated, even though you still spend most of your time together and do intend on getting back together at some point, ie. not divorcing is enough to justify people with large capital should still be entitled to claim HB.

And of course, that wouldn't be at all open to abuse

All benefit legislation is open to abuse. The difference is in this case is that it may appear to be abuse, but it also appears to be quite legal. That's all that counts. Surely you can't object to people planning and arranging their affairs so that they can maximise their income as well never mind reducing their tax liability if that was involved as well in a legal manner?

FBaby

She isn't. She is asking if he could, after their separation, rent a property to live in and claim housing benefit as he doesn't work and doesn't have an income

Which wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't a 'trial' separation. A 'trial' is a test to assess suitability, ie. testing if they should indeed separate for good. They are therefore not yet separated, let alone divorced.

Surely you can't object to people planning and arranging their affairs so that they can maximise their income as well never mind reducing their tax liability if that was involved as well in a legal manner?

Actually I do when people try to benefit from what has been set up not intended to support their own circumstances.