Is this legal ?

robpw2

Darren_Featherstone wrote: »

Based upon the views being expressed here, the wife needs to understand how the relationship may have impacted upon her claims (which were initially made upon separation), and inform the relevant authorities herself about the relationship. I am grateful for all your contributions to the thread, it is helpful.

Always best to inform the relevant authorities of any change of circumstances,

Nick_C

Penitent wrote: »

Surely someone who wants expert legal advice rather than opinions should go to a legal expert, rather than asking random folk on the internet?

In this case, they're married, in an active relationship and spending most nights together, so the partner hasn't left permanently, so I'm still not convinced they're not part of the same household.

11151-11152
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658225/dmgch11.pdf

Some people on this forum understand what the law says about this issue. Others do not. Some of the replies to this thread are clearly made up by people who don't know the law or understand it. That is not helpful.

Darksparkle

FBaby wrote: »

They are a couple again end of. The question is if they stopped getting all this extra benefits would they continue to live in two separate households even if worse off financially?

Might need to stop their expensive family holidays!

Darren_Featherstone

Fair point. The husband paid for the holidays, to help win back his wife, who has dumped him about ten times since getting back together. He wants his family back together, and also wants to avoid any wrongdoing.

tomtom256

From a fraud aspect the only benefit as such that is in doubt would be the tax credits.

For HB they would have to be maintaining a common household to be classed as a couple, which as they have separate homes they are not doing and as such a DM could not make the decision they are LT, a couple yes, but no LT.

Darksparkle

Darren_Featherstone wrote: »

Fair point. The husband paid for the holidays, to help win back his wife, who has dumped him about ten times since getting back together. He wants his family back together, and also wants to avoid any wrongdoing.

Money doesn’t buy love. I hope the husband is sure she genuinely wants to be together and doesn’t want him just for his money (and the taxpayers).

Darren_Featherstone

She is unstable, depressed, and life hasn't turned out the way she had hoped. It has been tentative, sometimes three steps forward, two steps back. She isn't certain what she wants from life, and has hurt a lot of people, and been hurt herself. The flat, and her benefits, gives her a Plan B if the reconcilliation doesn't work out, which is understandable except for the prospect of it being benefit fraud.

Bogof_Babe

Darren_Featherstone wrote: »

In short, no. The wife enjoys having the flat but it would not be affordable without the £1300 benefits being claimed. Without the benefits, she could not support herself without moving back in with the husband, or back in with her parents.

This says it all. Sheesh, a second home courtesy of the taxpayer.

Darren_Featherstone

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

This says it all. Sheesh, a second home courtesy of the taxpayer.

I agree completely, hence trying to establish if its right or wrong. Next step is to persuade her to consider her position and inform the authorities, hopefully avoiding her making the decision to end the relationship and keep her benefits. There's two children involved too. I'd say the right thing overall would be for this wife to separate, get her time/space, decide to get back with the husband, then move back in and stop claiming benefits. Most of this has happened, its the final two stages which have yet to happen. She will not be aware its potentially fraud, believe it or not, and the claims were genuine when initially made.

Darren_Featherstone

Thanks for that information. It seems to be that the legislation tries to cover the situation with this wording;

In this Part “ couple ” means—
(a)a man and woman who are married to each other and are neither—
(i)separated under a court order, nor
(ii)separated in circumstances in which the separation is likely to be permanent,

With "circumstances in which the separation is likely to be permanent" being the key phrase. I imagine it was just easier to come up with that kind of catch all description, than try to cover every imaginable scenario. It's a definition of being separated and in this instance, husband and wife are not separated. Lord only knows what the future holds but that is a different matter.