Partner staying while in lockdown and Universal Credit rules

sassy_one

You posted here hoping everyone would tell you what you wanted to hear.

The bottom line is as others have told you, he has been living there.
Regardless now many scenarios you want to make up to justify the matter, he is and has been.

The fact remains, he has been living there and the reality is it goes on alot.
What will happen is more to the point, likely she'll have a hefty overpayment to pay back.

No one can tell you what you want to hear, as everyone here is telling you the facts.

calcotti

dvds2000 said:

Nannytone said:

11 if they were on a 7 week cruise it would be a holiday as neither of them would be in their home. Instead he is living in a home  with your daughter for which she is claiming benefit.
They wouldn't be better off claiming as a couple as as he has an asset in the home he owns that would prevent him from being eligible for universal credit.
This in turn would also stop your daughter from claiming universal credit.

Are you sure about that? He bought it around 2 years ago. Property prices have fell since then, I very much doubt there is any equity in it at the moment. There is also a relative living in it over Pension Credit age. Unless things have changed recently, it would be disregarded for any means tested benefit.

That’s correct

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/864939/admh2.pdf

H2048 Premises that are occupied as the home by a close relative of a person are disregarded indefinitely where the close relative has

1. LCW or

2. reached the qualifying age for SPC.

The second property in this case is therefore irrelevant if father is of pension age (can’t spot whether OP has said they are or not).

sammyjammy

They share no finances and he maintains his own property, I don't believe under the current circumstances there would be a problem and as I said before I doubt that the call was even genuine.  Its just not how it works.

dvds2000

sassy-one said:

You posted here hoping everyone would tell you what you wanted to hear.

The bottom line is as others have told you, he has been living there.
Regardless now many scenarios you want to make up to justify the matter, he is and has been.

The fact remains, he has been living there and the reality is it goes on alot.
What will happen is more to the point, likely she'll have a hefty overpayment to pay back.

No one can tell you what you want to hear, as everyone here is telling you the facts.

And this post is exactly the type I mentioned earlier, just some statements without actually explaining why you think that.
Please tell me how she will have a hefty overpayment?
1. If she had a joint claim she will be entitled to more money.
2. She claimed 3 weeks ago. She hasn't had a payment yet. You have to wait 5 weeks, and she didn't take the advance as she had enough to last her 5 weeks.
So thank you in advance for telling me the facts, but would be nice if you could explain your logic round them.

dvds2000

John_ said:

dvds2000 said:

wilfred30 said:

Why did she lie to the JobCentrePlus Compliance Officer?  Of course he's living with her and has been for the last 7 weeks.  Why didn't she just explain the situation to them as she did to Tax Credits?  If she had, this problem probably wouldn't have arisen.

Also, there wasn't really any reason why he couldn't go home on the morning of Tuesday, 24 March after the announcement on the 23rd.  Did he and your daughter really think that anyone in the country who was not at their own home when the lockdown was announced had to stay wherever they were indefinitely?

She didn't lie, he isn't living there, he has been staying there. If you go on a cruise for 6 weeks, does that mean you are living on the ship and it's your home? No, of course not. The problem had already arisen or the compliance officer wouldn't have rang.

I don't know what they thought, I know there were trains cancelled at the time, and that he wasn't over happy about staying as his Dad can't go out and he wanted to be there to help him, so I don't think it was deliberate, more a misunderstanding of what they were allowed to do.

All the replies seem to be missing the point that she would actually be better off claiming together, so there was no fraudulent intent. He isn't earning anything, he doesn't have savings over £6000 and doesn't claim any benefits, there is no financial incentive to lie about him not living there.

Oh come on. Do you really think that this silly piece of semantics changes the reality of the situation? He’s been there for weeks, they are a couple, and presumably are sharing a bed. That’s living together. She ought to have said as much, and trying to argue that they have no right to visit is hardly going to stop,the truth coming out.

People using this crisis to scam the system is abhorrent.

Thanks for your comment, can you explain what the scam is in your view?