We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Universal Credit - definition of temporary absence
trf0412
Posts: 13 Forumite
Universal Credit legislation states: (6) Where the claimant is a member of a couple, and the other member is temporarily absent from the claimant’s household, they cease to be treated as a couple if that absence is expected to exceed, or does exceed, 6 months.
But there appears to be no legal definition of "temporary absence". What if the "other member" of the couple has to temporarily work away from home for a year, but visits the family home at weekends?
But there appears to be no legal definition of "temporary absence". What if the "other member" of the couple has to temporarily work away from home for a year, but visits the family home at weekends?
0
Comments
-
They are returning to the home every week therefore are not absent. Plenty of people work away from home all week and return at weekends.0
-
Thanks for the reply. I agree, the fact that this isn't a particularly unusual situation would suggest that being away for work Mon-Fri over 12 months doesn't qualify as a temporary absence.
Stories like this confuse matters a little, though... (sorry, I can't post links, but Googling this should bring up the story: "CH/3747/2013 — Couple who lived separately but spent weekends together were not ‘couple’ for benefit purposes")0 -
Thanks for the reply. I agree, the fact that this isn't a particularly unusual situation would suggest that being away for work Mon-Fri over 12 months doesn't qualify as a temporary absence.
Stories like this confuse matters a little, though... (sorry, I can't post links, but Googling this should bring up the story: "CH/3747/2013 — Couple who lived separately but spent weekends together were not ‘couple’ for benefit purposes")
That's different to a situation where a person's job takes them away during the week, or even more extended periods. Long distance drivers, oil rig workers are just two examples where they would still be classed as a couple despite spending extended periods apart.0 -
The only situation I can think of would be where a partner goes to jail for longer then six months.0
-
Yes, I see your point. In one scenario, living apart is the default state and the weekend visits are just that (i.e. visits), while in the other case the default state is living together (and so it’s not a case of “visiting” at the weekend, but rather “returning home” for the weekend).
So really the only work-related situation where the 6-month rule might apply is where someone, for whatever reason, is unable to get back home for that length of time (and that is highly unlikely if the person is in the UK).0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards