No benefits after car crash puts you out of work?

comeandgo

I don't think people give enough thought to what would happen if they were seriously injured and their partner has to care for them. The financial impact can be horrendous. I hope your partner is on the mend and accidents happen all the time, I have been involved in 3, non my fault, always a passenger or on foot but it did teach me to have income insurance which pays out a weekly amount after 3 months. Only in one of the incidents did I claim from the driver and it can take years.

Poppie68

HeavyMetalFan wrote: »

Unbelievable levels of animosity shown towards the OP. I just can't believe that his partner was so thoughtless to inconvenience the air ambulance service - couldn't she have paid for a taxi?

I don't know enough about the benefits system in general but I agree with the OP. His partner deserves some assistance in her hour of need after paying to the system throughout her adult life.

I wish her a speedy recovery.

People are stating facts not showing animosity.... due to her partners income she will not be able to claim means tested benefits but if she has paid enough National Insurance contributions during the two years up to the accident she will be able to claim ESA for a minimum of 365 days and PIP which is available to anyone fitting the criteria, so help is available for her as well as her partners income.

xylophone

Perhaps explains why the OP hasn't actually married his partner.

I had not realised that they were not married - nevertheless, if they are in a committed relationship, (partners) rather than merely "friends with benefits" ( is that the current expression?) they should support each other?

Otherwise they can choose to live separately and the partner can claim any state support to which she would be entitled? But then they would not be partners?

What is the difference between partners and house/bed sharers?

Does not partnership imply mutual support?

thorsoak

In 1983, when my OH had an accident which left him with short-term memory loss, we experienced the impact that such a life-changing effect had on the whole family, when he was retired on ill-health grounds at the age of 45, after one year on full pay (less whatever sickness benefit was called then) and one year on half-pay. No other benefits were due to him then due to the fact that I worked - despite the fact that our family consisted of mum, dad and 4 children with mortgage, etc etc.

We managed - somehow - and I'm sure that you and your partner will get through it too, OP.

missbiggles1

xylophone wrote: »

I had not realised that they were not married - nevertheless, if they are in a committed relationship, (partners) rather than merely "friends with benefits" ( is that the current expression?) they should support each other?

Otherwise they can choose to live separately and the partner can claim any state support to which she would be entitled? But then they would not be partners?

What is the difference between partners and house/bed sharers?

Does not partnership imply mutual support?

Unlike marriage, "partnership" can mean anything from an informal marriage, to a way of avoiding using the expression "boy/girlfriend". What it does not imply is that the partners involved have promised each other "for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health....."

This difference is well illustrated by the views expressed by the OP in this thread.

xylophone

Unlike marriage, "partnership" can mean anything from an informal marriage, to a way of avoiding using the expression "boy/girlfriend". What it does not imply is that the partners involved have promised each other "for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health....."

What on earth is an "informal marriage"? People are either married or they are not? Or are those who are "informally married" the ones who have acknowledged a moral (if not legal) obligation to support each other for richer or poorer etc?

Presumably what the OP's partner needs to demonstrate is that she is not the OP's partner but merely a person sharing the same house if she wishes to benefit from other than contributory or non-means tested benefits?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5203558

But would you describe someone who is simply sharing your house as your partner?

At all events, as far as the authorities are concerned, it is immaterial whether or not two persons are married - if they are living together as a couple, they are counted as a couple as far as means tested benefits are concerned and I would imagine that the OP and his partner knew and accepted that this would be the case if, for example, one or other of them lost a job/could not work for whatever reason?

This being the case, he would seem to have no grounds for complaint?

missbiggles1

xylophone wrote: »

What on earth is an "informal marriage"? People are either married or they are not? Or are those who are "informally married" the ones who have acknowledged a moral (if not legal) obligation to support each other for richer or poorer etc?

Presumably what the OP's partner needs to demonstrate is that she is not the OP's partner but merely a person sharing the same house if she wishes to benefit from other than contributory or non-means tested benefits?

But would you describe someone who is simply sharing your house as your partner?

At all events, as far as the authorities are concerned, it is immaterial whether or not two persons are married - if they are living together as a couple, they are counted as a couple as far as means tested benefits are concerned and I would imagine that the OP and his partner knew and accepted that this would be the case if, for example, one or other of them lost a job/could not work for whatever reason?

This being the case, he would seem to have no grounds for complaint?

By "informal marriage" I meant a relationship which is as committed as a marriage, but without the paperwork.

Many people refer to a boy or girlfriend as a partner, regardless of whether they are committed to each other or even share a home.

I agree that it's all immaterial where benefits are concerned.

Londonsu

xylophone wrote: »

What on earth is an "informal marriage"? People are either married or they are not? Or are those who are "informally married" the ones who have acknowledged a moral (if not legal) obligation to support each other for richer or poorer etc?

Presumably what the OP's partner needs to demonstrate is that she is not the OP's partner but merely a person sharing the same house if she wishes to benefit from other than contributory or non-means tested benefits?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5203558

But would you describe someone who is simply sharing your house as your partner?

At all events, as far as the authorities are concerned, it is immaterial whether or not two persons are married - if they are living together as a couple, they are counted as a couple as far as means tested benefits are concerned and I would imagine that the OP and his partner knew and accepted that this would be the case if, for example, one or other of them lost a job/could not work for whatever reason?

This being the case, he would seem to have no grounds for complaint?

On any official claim form they use the word partner and define partner as someone you are married to or live together as if married, as yes they will count a partners income when it comes to IR related benefits.


Its actually one of my pet hates, the man I have lived with for 43 years is my Husband I have been known to change forms crossing out partner and writing in husband. I see no reason why forms cant have partner/spouse on them instead if just partner apart from appeasing the PC brigade.