council claim we are lving together when we are not

djhalfbrow

Thank you for your replys, Been a great help, all except daveboy who seems to think everybody is out to con the system, great con this is, what exactly am I getting away with, I still have to pay my mortgage, council tax, electric, gas, food etc etc, We live 40 miles away from each other so to just visit and drive back again is a somewhat taxing task, if she was staying at my house which i am paying a mortage on, which on its own its twice as much as council rent, and not at hers then nobody would think twice about it, buy she has two young children who go to school there so cannot expect her to drive 40 miles in the morning. Wake up daveboy, if we decide to live together then we will have 1 house between us and I will be happy to pay the bills, but until then it seems unfair that she will lose out for doing nothing wrong.

Midas

daveboy wrote:

I'd read your post as deliberately attempting to get round the system.

My understanding is that if you spend more than 50% of the week there, they can do something.

3 nights out of 7 to me tells me you know it and are angry that you've been picked up on it.

I think it's correct of the council as many people defraud the system this way.

Even if you are right about the 50 percent rule (which I doubt) the fact that the OP spends less than half the week at his girlfriend's makes it completely irrelevant.

djhalfbrow do not be unduly worried, you can easily prove that you have separate residences, bills etc which satisfy the council.

Ted_Hutchinson

This answer from Clive.Martin at uk.gov.social-security may be a little dated but it does make it clear that it isn't simply the amount of time which is spent together which is the sole issueLong answer:


"[in] the decision of Crake v The Supplementary Benefits Commission ..
the criteria to be considered in determining whether or not a man and a woman were living together as husband and wife .. read as follows:-
"(a) Members of the same household. The man must be living in the same household as the woman and will usually have no other home where he normally lives. This implies that the couple livetogether wholly, apart
from absences necessary for the man's employment, visits to relatives etc.
(b) Stability. Living together as husband and wife clearly implies more than an occasional or very brief association. When a couple first live together, it may be clear from the start that the relationship is similar to that of husband and wife, e.g. the woman has taken the man's name and has borne his child, but in cases where the nature of the relationship is doubtful the Commission will be prepared to continue the woman's benefit for a short time in order to avoid discouraging the formation of a stable relationship.
(c) Financial Support. In most husband and wife relationships one would expect to find financial support of one party by the other, or sharing, of household expenses, but the absence of any such arrangement is not conclusive.
(d) Sexual Relationship. A sexual relationship is a normal and important part of a marriage and therefore of living together as husband and wife. But its absence does not necessarily prove that a couple are not living as husband and wife, nor does its presence prove that they are. The Commission's officers are instructed not to question claimants upon the physical aspect of their relationship, though claimants may choose to make statements about it.
(e) Children. When a couple are caring for a child or children of their union, there is a strong presumption that they are living as husband and wife.
(f) Public Acknowledgement. Whether the couple have represented themselves to other parties as husband and wife is relevant, but many couplesliving together do not wish to pretend that they are actually married, and the fact that they retain their identity publicly as unmarried persons does not mean they cannot be regarded as livingtogether as husband and wife."

No one part of this well-established test should be given undue weight. They are just a range of issues to be looked at and weighed up.

The short answer (what "the man down the pub" will tell you):
3 nights a week and someone isn't living there, 4 nights a week and they are - because they are then together

The practical answer ("the Rathfelder patented marmalade test"):

Do A and B each have their own pot of marmalade? If not, and they share one, the chances are that they are more often than not. But you can see from the above that this is really an unsatisfactorily superficial approach. living together as husband and wife!
I see Anthony is working up an alternative approach - the onion storage test.......

Clive
--
| Clive Martin (my email address is cliveatcmartindotdemondotcodot uk). |
| Half of all known knowledge about social security and child support: |
| www.ferret.co.uk/sscdad.htm ...... but is it the right half

pandas66

Its seems they are doing a time and motion study themselves to disprove the criteria. They know the common knowledge of how many nights and keeping seperate houses. But OP admits he has items left in the house of g/f, therefore by his own admission its easier to have items in 2 houses. Bet its all removed when the inspection takes place. Does this smack of guilt? A 40 mile round trip is the 'excuse/reason' given.

Tabbykatt

Pandas66 you are more than entitled to your view of how the system is 'fiddled', but I have to add that we are living in 2005. Any relationship that is to bud into something more permanant and lifelong needs time to grow, and in this modern age this does include sleeping with one another. To move in and live together is a very serious decision for anyone to make let alone if you have kids thats have already been traumatised by one split. A factor in my marriage breakdown was rushing into the grown-up stuff with the vigour of youth and foolishness and I certainly was not going to make that mistake again, not only for my children but for my own sanity.
The system has acknowledged this fact and put the 3 day rule in place, which is fair not only on the recipient of the benefit but also on the tax payer, who certainly should not have to foot the bill for those who do truly 'fiddle', and try to live for free.
If it were not in place I do believe that couples would rush into living together, leading to further heartache and splits, or would not even form the relationships in the first place that would hopefully help them get out the benefit sytem all together.

Not everything in this world is black and white!

jenpoptab

I believe that being there 50% of the time is not what they are looking at. They actually check to see if you are sharing living expenses, eating together regularly etc. This is why some people who share houses have been deemed to be living together although they are not a couple.

At the end of the day the reason these claims have to be investigated is because some people do abuse the system. If all is well, the council will know. I'm sure they don't make a habit of making life hell for the sake of it.

Phonix

They actually check to see if you are sharing living expenses, eating together regularly etc

Sounds like the council are playing a silly guessing game where the guesses they make suddenly become facts.

If anything, if your partner does come to visit often it's likely that you'll be the one providing for them. How do they know any different?

Surely if you took the council to a court of law they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. What are they going to do, monitor the amount of food that comes through your door, or place a camera in your house to see when your partner slips you the odd fiver to get some milk?

It's crazy,

Council "ah he's bought her some milk and used her toilet, ah we'll let it go"

Council: "ah he's done it again, I have no option I will have to remove her and the children's benefits because she's clearly recieveing the same suport we give her from elsewhere"

pandas66

Tabbykatt wrote:

The system has acknowledged this fact and put the 3 day rule in place, which is fair not only on the recipient of the benefit but also on the tax payer, who certainly should not have to foot the bill for those who do truly 'fiddle', and try to live for free.
If it were not in place I do believe that couples would rush into living together, leading to further heartache and splits, or would not even form the relationships in the first place that would hopefully help them get out the benefit sytem all together.

Not everything in this world is black and white!

Is this why the rule was put in place? I don't think so, btw I know what year it is and that children should be protected by the instability of relationships. But to live so 'intune' with the rules. I am cautious that the OP was asking whether he is correct in how they are interpreting the law. I do feel its a situation of being able to take advantage of by him or g/f. However long the relationship is months/years of being together its convienent of not having to commit to each other but can choose his /her 2nd home as a previous poster said. They aren't necessarily wrong in keeping seperate houses from the childrens point of view. But will OP openly admit to staying 3 nights a week when interviewed ?, will his personnel posessions be removed? Not everything is in a grey area like a lot of people like to live to justify their actions.

djhalfbrow

Hi I am the g/f and just to point out a few things....when the benefit officer came to my house....he told me that there was no set rules on how many nights you can have your b/f / partner to stay, he said "thats what people assume"...it was made clear to me that if people see us outside i.e holding hands and acting as a couple then thats where they could class us as a couple...so really to me it wasn't about when he stayed here it was how other people see us....I did make him aware of how many nights he was here and also of the few belongings he has...as my b/f said he and I both looked into his staying here and if it would affect my benefits and saw that it didn't say what we could or couldn't do....we have only been together for 6months and we are still at the level of getting to know each other.....I would not have a man move into mine and my girls home just like that...he does not pay any bills here or any food....The benefit officer also made it clear that it was o.k to have friends and family over to stay but b/f was different...which to me is a joke.....in my eyes when you meet someone you become friends and then build up from there into a relationship...I have rang and spoken to income support this morning on the phone and the lady I spoke to said that she did not seeing it affecting my benefits and that my b/f and I should both write letters to verify our situation....she also did say that if income support did reduce or stop my payment then I should appeal against them....so that does put my mind as ease alittle but you just never know whats round the corner and it could be some time before this has been sorted.....feel like a sitting duck at present.....just wish to say thank you for all your reply's..xx

jellyhead

you've only been together for 6 months, fair enough that you both still live in separate houses. i hope everything goes well and like hubby and i you eventually decide to move in together, but in the meantime good luck with the benefits situation. i think you're doing the right thing.