Claim as single?

something_girl

mitchaa wrote: »

Well you are easily offended as there is no offensive material in my post.

Your example above is not proof of a loan:rotfl: A cheque for the car out of your bank account does not constitute you lending him money.

so a cheque made payable to a car dealership for a car that is in his name, is not proof of a loan? What is then?

If you read your original post back, of course it was offensive, presuming I was 'pulling a fast one', believe it or not, there are some honest citizens out there, who have genuine benefit questions!

something_girl

mitchaa wrote: »

So both of you now get WTC but yet are still together as a couple. Not as much as you would like because he has gone away with work Mon-Thurs

Most of the armed forces are in a similar position, they stay in camp during the week and go home at the weekend.

Great:rolleyes:

Armed forces do not pay to stay elsewhere and I would imagine armed forces families who are claiming whatever, are 'living together as if married'. We are not.

mitchaa

something_girl wrote: »

so a cheque made payable to a car dealership for a car that is in his name, is not proof of a loan? What is then?

No it is not, its proof that you bought the car. Its not proof that he owes you money.

The same way when i bought my wifes car, the money came out of my account.

mitchaa

something_girl wrote: »

Armed forces do not pay to stay elsewhere and I would imagine armed forces families who are claiming whatever, are 'living together as if married'. We are not.

Yes they do, armed forces have to pay for their room on camp, they do not get it for nothing. The same way they have to pay for their food, it comes straight out of their wage packet.

And they will also pay for the home their wife/GF/children are living in too even though they may only live there at weekends.

something_girl

mitchaa wrote: »

So both of you now get WTC but yet are still together as a couple. Not as much as you would like because he has gone away with work Mon-Thurs

Most of the armed forces are in a similar position, they stay in camp during the week and go home at the weekend.

Great:rolleyes:

oh and he wouldn't get WTC because of his salary. I receive about £60 a month now, even though I only work part time.

something_girl

mitchaa wrote: »

Yes they do, armed forces have to pay for there room on camp, they do not get it for nothing.

They pay for their food and accomodation, its not free.

I mean when they go 'away from their family', they are not paying extra to live elsewhere.

I was a member of the armed forces, I know how it works.
My case cannot be compared.

something_girl

mitchaa wrote: »

No it is not, its proof that you bought the car. Its not proof that he owes you money.

The same way when i bought my wifes car, the money came out of my account.

Right, yeh I see that.... hmmm, perhaps I should have got something written up, I didn't think of that at the time, probably because I've never claimed any benefits.

Idiophreak

something_girl wrote: »

If you read your original post back, of course it was offensive, presuming I was 'pulling a fast one', believe it or not, there are some honest citizens out there, who have genuine benefit questions!

Have you never watched judge judy?

Imagine, if you will, that judge judy is Mr Benefit Man...Judge Judy Say:

"I don't see anything in these papers that say that you, Madam, leant this money to Mr X. I think it was a gift. You bought him the car as a gift. Now, since he's being staying at your house, he's been giving you a little bit of money to help you out. These aren't repayments. He doesn't owe you money for the car. That is all. Case dismissed!" *whacks her hammer down*

Or words to that effect, anyway.

Mitchaa was just making the point that you can't prove the "loan" is the reason he's been giving you £200/month. Which you can't. You shouldn't get offended over it. Life's too short.

something_girl

The 'loan' excuse i would imagine has been used a billion times before. Unless there is a written contract or proof of the loan, then they would see straight through it.



ok fair enough, I just took exception to the words 'excuse' and 'used a billion times before', as I have never knowingly cheated anyone, be it government or whoever in my life!

mitchaa

something_girl wrote: »

I mean when they go 'away from their family', they are not paying extra to live elsewhere.

I was a member of the armed forces, I know how it works.
My case cannot be compared.

What do you mean they do not pay extra to go elsewhere, yes they do.

If they live on camp, they will pay food/accomodation charges. If they go to Afghanistan for 6 months, they will get this rebated to them.

I too know how the armed forces work

But this is going off topic.....

I personally think the 'single' rule needs clarifying in black and white as its such a grey area.

I.e...Single to me, means no relationship, it means single, you are clearly in a relationship though so this is where it becomes a grey area.

I think it should be on what family/friends would see you as, ie would they say ''Jenny is single'', or would they say ''Jenny has got a boyfriend''

If its just casual sex, meet up once or twice then parents and friends wouldn't say you had a boyfriend, but when it gets more serious where someone stays over frequently then IMO, you are no longer single, you have a boyfirend and you are now attached.

It gets all messy when the financial side of things comes into place and trying to prove this and that.

To me, single should mean exactly that, single. it shouldn't mean having a boyfriend that doesn't contribute like it does at the moment.

IMO anyway.

I like my 1st post, advise you just to be careful, that's all. im not accusing you of anything, im just thinking the way a fraud inspector would Well i think anyway:rotfl:

All the best with your decision.