Changing to joint claim/ on sick leave (tax credits)

roje

Icequeen99 wrote: »

Rare that I disagree but it makes a big difference.

OP has said the split was temporary therefore they were still a married couple for tax credit purposes and the joint claim should have remained.

If compliance pick this up, which they may well do especially now, all of the single payments she has received would be overpaid.

The only way to reduce them would be to ask for notional offsetting but that is increasingly hard to get these days. And if the OP claimed any childcare help, that wouldn't be covered by notional offsetting. So I think it is very relevant.

IQ

This is interesting as it is not what I was told by the tax credits office. I called them when I separated from my husband and they said what mattered was whether we considered that we had been living as husband and wife. In fact, because I stated that we had not been living as husband and wife for a couple of months before he left, they took some money from my new claim saying that I should have called them the second we made the decision, which I found ridiculous. The reason I hadn't called them was that he was still living at the same address, and I didn't want to get into any trouble! When I told them that we had initially not been sure whether or not we were separating, they claimed that as soon as the decision was made to separate was made, the joint claim became invalid EVEN if he lived under the same roof. They said married couples could live under the same roof and be married in law, but the joint claim would not be valid if the couple were not living as man and wife. I was very surprised by this.

I haven't claimed any childcare support so that isn't an issue.

I don't understand why would they need to investigate me when I did not benefit financially from beginning a single claim? As he wasn't earning or able to pay any maintenance, my payments did not change.

Icequeen99

roje wrote: »

This is interesting as it is not what I was told by the tax credits office. I called them when I separated from my husband and they said what mattered was whether we considered that we had been living as husband and wife. In fact, because I stated that we had not been living as husband and wife for a couple of months before he left, they took some money from my new claim saying that I should have called them the second we made the decision, which I found ridiculous. The reason I hadn't called them was that he was still living at the same address, and I didn't want to get into any trouble! When I told them that we had initially not been sure whether or not we were separating, they claimed that as soon as the decision was made to separate was made, the joint claim became invalid EVEN if he lived under the same roof. They said married couples could live under the same roof and be married in law, but the joint claim would not be valid if the couple were not living as man and wife. I was very surprised by this.

I haven't claimed any childcare support so that isn't an issue.

I don't understand why would they need to investigate me when I did not benefit financially from beginning a single claim? As he wasn't earning or able to pay any maintenance, my payments did not change.

Were you married? The living together as husband and wife test only applies to non-married couples. If you are married then the rules say that you have to claim jointly unless you are separated under a court order or separated permanently.

It matters because that is the way tax credits are structured. It doesn't matter whether the incomes were the same, i have dealt with lots of single/joint overpayments where it made no difference to the award but there was still an overpayment because an incorrect claim was made. Crazy, but those are the rules.

If they do come back and investigate the single claim, you will need to dispute on the basis of wrong advice and get a copy of those phone calls.

IQ

roje

Icequeen99 wrote: »

Were you married? The living together as husband and wife test only applies to non-married couples. If you are married then the rules say that you have to claim jointly unless you are separated under a court order or separated permanently.

It matters because that is the way tax credits are structured. It doesn't matter whether the incomes were the same, i have dealt with lots of single/joint overpayments where it made no difference to the award but there was still an overpayment because an incorrect claim was made. Crazy, but those are the rules.

If they do come back and investigate the single claim, you will need to dispute on the basis of wrong advice and get a copy of those phone calls.

IQ

Yes we have always been married, have the same surname and I clearly stated that my husband had left. The advice given was from two different operatives as the original person got a manager involved at my request and she called me back. She said the same thing. That if we were not living together as husband and wife, our joint claim had been invalid. I'm totally confused now. Why would a claim be joint when a married couple had separated and lived at different addresses?

Darksparkle

roje wrote: »

Yes we have always been married, have the same surname and I clearly stated that my husband had left. The advice given was from two different operatives as the original person got a manager involved at my request and she called me back. She said the same thing. That if we were not living together as husband and wife, our joint claim had been invalid. I'm totally confused now. Why would a claim be joint when a married couple had separated and lived at different addresses?

The guidance has never been very clear/understood well.

A married couple can claim is separated but it needs to be a permanent separation.

It's mentioned here - http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ccmmanual/CCM15035.htm

And here - https://www.gov.uk/claim-tax-credits/joint-claims

Icequeen99

roje wrote: »

Yes we have always been married, have the same surname and I clearly stated that my husband had left. The advice given was from two different operatives as the original person got a manager involved at my request and she called me back. She said the same thing. That if we were not living together as husband and wife, our joint claim had been invalid. I'm totally confused now. Why would a claim be joint when a married couple had separated and lived at different addresses?

Because where you physically live is not relevant. What matters is whether it is a temporary or permanent separation.

It doesn't surprise me that the helpline got it wrong.

You can read about the rules here http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ccmmanual/CCM15035.htm in the HMRC manual

And couples who are not married here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/ccmmanual/ccm15040.htm - which is the living together as husband and wife test.

Edited to add: the LTAHW criteria can be helpful in looking at whether it is a temporary or permanent separation but nothing more

IQ

roje

It was a permanent separation when it happened, though. We separated with the intention of getting divorced. That's what I find so crazy about this. Hundreds of married couples reconcile every day.

If they try and claim back my payments, essentially they will be claiming that I was entitled to nothing throughout the period when I was entitled to the same whether I was single or married.

What would they do? How would they claim it back, would they take it back gradually or just make a demand for the money? I don't have the money and I am already in dire straits financially thanks to becoming ill. It would literally make the difference between me being able to feed my children and pay my mortgage or not

I can't quite believe that they have created a rule to discourage married couples to reconcile, especially as most married couples would receive less money than a single parent. It doesn't make any sense.

Icequeen99

roje wrote: »

It was a permanent separation when it happened, though. We separated with the intention of getting divorced. That's what I find so crazy about this. Hundreds of married couples reconcile every day.

If they try and claim back my payments, essentially they will be claiming that I was entitled to nothing throughout the period when I was entitled to the same whether I was single or married.

What would they do? How would they claim it back, would they take it back gradually or just make a demand for the money? I don't have the money and I am already in dire straits financially thanks to becoming ill. It would literally make the difference between me being able to feed my children and pay my mortgage or not

I can't quite believe that they have created a rule to discourage married couples to reconcile, especially as most married couples would receive less money than a single parent. It doesn't make any sense.

If it was permanent that is fine, but above you said it was temporary. If they investigate then you can just provide evidence of the permanent nature - in my cases we have used things like solicitor letters, child maintenance payments, removal of names from bank accounts, changing things to single names etc...to show it was intended as permanent (whether or not they later reconciled)

It will only be a problem if there is nothing to show that at the time you believed it was was permanent. And all of this would only be an issue if you get picked up on a compliance check.

IQ

roje

Icequeen99 wrote: »

If it was permanent that is fine, but above you said it was temporary. If they investigate then you can just provide evidence of the permanent nature - in my cases we have used things like solicitor letters, child maintenance payments, removal of names from bank accounts, changing things to single names etc...to show it was intended as permanent (whether or not they later reconciled)

It will only be a problem if there is nothing to show that at the time you believed it was was permanent. And all of this would only be an issue if you get picked up on a compliance check.

IQ

Thank you. I think I misunderstood your question, I thought it was strange at the time as I'd mentioned reconciling (which would obviously mean it had turned out to be temporary). But when the separation occurred, it was with the view to divorcing. I do have some evidence we considered it permanent. We sold our house and I bought a new house. I had everything put into my name, I also removed the link between us with all the credit reference agencies based on our separation. My ex signed over the equity in the previous house to me and I signed a form for the solicitor to confirm no other adult was moving to the property with me.
Hopefully this will reassure them that nothing fraudulent has occurred, I wish I'd always been on this forum as it's the only place I've ever been able to make any sort of sense of the entire system. Thanks for your help.

Icequeen99

roje wrote: »

Thank you. I think I misunderstood your question, I thought it was strange at the time as I'd mentioned reconciling (which would obviously mean it had turned out to be temporary). But when the separation occurred, it was with the view to divorcing. I do have some evidence we considered it permanent. We sold our house and I bought a new house. I had everything put into my name, I also removed the link between us with all the credit reference agencies based on our separation. My ex signed over the equity in the previous house to me and I signed a form for the solicitor to confirm no other adult was moving to the property with me.
Hopefully this will reassure them that nothing fraudulent has occurred, I wish I'd always been on this forum as it's the only place I've ever been able to make any sort of sense of the entire system. Thanks for your help.

That is definitely good solid evidence. Hopefully you can put the new joint claim in and it will all go smoothly.

IQ

ab1982

Have you always lived together then even when separated?