Do I "live" with my partner?

emmy05

why dont you just tell the benefits ppl what youre doing, find out that way, they really ought to do away with benefits altogether with the way 'some people' are saying they are 'lone parent' and 'single'. If you were paying your own rent and council tax in full yourself each month then fine, you wouldnt be asking, but youre not, and youre also trying to claim more just cos youre lowering your hours, its a pile of rubbish really what 'some people' will do just cos theyre greedy

duchy

Icanandwillsavemoney wrote: »

I would have thought you would need to be doing domestics for him, such as his washing and ironing and also taking cash from him as a contribution towards the household running costs for it to be construed as living together.

I may be wrong but ...

Plenty of men do their own washing and ironing regardless of their living arrangements-some can even handle a hoover !:rotfl:

joeblack066

If he stays over 5/6 nights a week he is living with you. The 3 nights a week thing is not a rule but is used as a guideline to demonstrate the differencebetween an occassional stop over and a more regular arrangement.
The situation you are in, intentionally or nbot, is without a doubt, benefit fraud. As it says on the ad, "No ifs, no buts"
Sorry. You have to decide what you want and sharpish, or you could face criminal proceedings.

misty_blue_2

i have always lived by my old dear departed mums rules,
she always taught us this little motto
"if you don't pay , you don't stay", in other words if you want to use the amenities/ house you pay towards them pure and simple,
i would class someone staying with me 5 or 6 nights a week as living together, he would be paying his way too

cyclonebri1

I know precious little about the benefit system but from flicking through this thread I would just like to say that;

If he stays the five nights a week you say, he comes "home" from work and he actually goes out to the pub and returns "home", then regardless of any rules he is living with you and darn well should be contributing wether you can prove he isn't or not. If you weren't getting the benefit he would have to contribute. Why should the state cover this?

If the authorities find out about this your benifits will surely be lost, if they aren't, well, what can I say.

I think you should have twigged be the way people have rumidged through your other posts that it only takes one person to pass on this link to the benefits people and it's game over especially after all the advice you have recieved,

Sorry, not intended to offend but I just see it this way,

haylibo

I think there is some confusion over what people feel morally is the issue and what the legal position is. Whether or not he has it cushy or is having his cake and eating it is neither here nor there. The simple question is, is Jo R breaking any benefit rules. I don't think we have an answer so far unless I've missed something.
For the record and to pop in my twopenneth I think it sounds like the actions of a wise mum to maintain some independence until sure of the relationship. Of course the benefits are allowing her to do that and to not have to rush into a 'meal ticket' relationship before she and her wee beans are ready and Amen to that! Thank goodness we are more civilised than to throw single mothers at the mercy of anyone who earns a wage.
Hayles

dellymelly

it is very true about the unemployed partner getting no benefits whatsoever and the other partner has to support him/her nobody cares then, not the goverment or tax credits or anyone else and thats when everything is declared and you tell the truth!!!!!!
if i was you i would say he is not living with you because if you do and then cannot afford to live, you will have a hell of a job getting back to the way you are now. believe me nobody will care if you cant afford your rent anymore or council tax.

poet123

At the very least he would be classed as a lodger and "deemed " to pay the going rate for board/bed. You need to contact them now and clarify the situation.otherwise a large overpayment looms and possibly worse.

terryw

poet123 wrote: »

At the very least he would be classed as a lodger and "deemed " to pay the going rate for board/bed. You need to contact them now and clarify the situation.otherwise a large overpayment looms and possibly worse.

The young man is not a lodger. He pays his mum for lodgings. He stays with his girlfriend much of the time.

As several posters have pointed out, this is not a moral issue. Is there benefit fraud involved? On the facts given, I do not think so and others disagree.

I would dearly love to see some definite link or court case of similar facts which indicate that this is benefit fraud. There must be many thousands of people in the same situation, and in the absence of some such definite proof, I fear that there is no such case to illustrate the point, and consequently we must assume that what the OP and her boyfriend do is acceptable within the benefits system. Rightly or wrongly.

Glittermonkey

You can get a copy of the "Living together as Husband and wife" decision makers guide from comminity legal services.

I've read it and it isn't clear at all.

Trouble is, even if you were to get prosecuted and a court found you not guilty as LTAHW, the LA can still deem you as LTAHW and still stop your benefits and you are landed with a huge overpayment.