Claim as single?

something_girl

mitchaa wrote: »

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.

yeh I'm sure you're right. Just a bit irksome really, since he is rarely with me and I don't 'feel' we are in a 'financially binding' relationship whatsoever. I am a single working parent, with a boyfriend who stays over occasionally, therefore I should be entitled to claim as such, purely tax credits, not income support or anything, I've never claimed a 'benefit' in my life, always worked and always paid etc etc.

Oh and when I was in the Falklands, I don't remember having to pay twice for my food and accommodation

terryw

mitchaa wrote: »

<snip>

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''

All the best with your decision.

This is already one of the factors taken into account in deciding if LTAHAW.

Mind, "Jenny has a boyfriend" is not a strong enough reason to stop benefits.
terryw

Idiophreak

mitchaa wrote: »

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.

That really is just madness, though, surely.

I start seeing a girl, go for a couple of drinks. We're getting on well, so I ask her to go steady.

Now I'm expected to provide for her and the kids she had by some other bloke? And she has to lose benefits because she's "got a boyfriend?".

Doesn't that just seem...odd to you?

terryw

Idiophreak wrote: »

, so I ask her to go steady.

What a lovely expression....I have not heard it in years. It just goes to show that there is still romance around.

Agree entirely with the rest of your post Idiophreak.

terryw

mitchaa

something_girl wrote: »

yeh I'm sure you're right. Just a bit irksome really, since he is rarely with me and I don't 'feel' we are in a 'financially binding' relationship whatsoever. I am a single working parent, with a boyfriend who stays over occasionally, therefore I should be entitled to claim as such, purely tax credits, not income support or anything, I've never claimed a 'benefit' in my life, always worked and always paid etc etc.

Oh and when I was in the Falklands, I don't remember having to pay twice for my food and accommodation

You wouldn't pay twice no. You dont pay for anything when you're out in theatre, but you would have continued to pay for your food/accom charges in camp. (Even though you were in the falklands)

And when you got back to mainland UK and back into base life, you will have had this paid back to you in a rebate

Its strange to me anyway that you are entitled to TC even being in a joint relationship but as a single relationship he wouldn't be entitled to anything and you would, The maths on that 1 i dont think work out...

Ie...Your income must be very low in order to claim TC with 2 working adults, so if you 'split up' then his income is still going to be low which would entitle him to WTC also.

Well assuming he is over 25.

Anyway, im sure you've gathered its quite a grey area so the decision is entirely yours. How much of a difference will it make? Perhaps the difference can be made up by him contributing financially? That way you would be able to sleep easy?

mitchaa

Idiophreak wrote: »

That really is just madness, though, surely.

I start seeing a girl, go for a couple of drinks. We're getting on well, so I ask her to go steady.

Now I'm expected to provide for her and the kids she had by some other bloke? And she has to lose benefits because she's "got a boyfriend?".

Doesn't that just seem...odd to you?

Yep it does, but where do you draw the line? O.P this is not aimed at you but there are many out there claiming to be single when they are not purely for benefit reasons.

Their alibi is, the ''im not financially linked'' excuse so they believe they'll never be caught as they both have single bank accounts.

This grey area needs sorting out, but how do you do it is the question? Your example above is obviously not fair, but neither is the system we have at the moment where it is so easy to abuse.

Perhaps a mandatory 2-3yr jail term for people openly abusing the system would sort it out. Put the fear back into it that it is wrong to falsely claim.

Or making it more financially rewarding to have a partner rather than being single??

something_girl

The difference is that he earns £36k and I earn £7220.
I have 2 kids
He has 2 kids
they have never met.
I own a house
He owns nothing.
I have savings
He does not

I do not want to be tied financially, so I wouldn't, say for example, buy a house with him etc or get married.

Irks me that my tax credits claim has to include his wages, when basically what he earns has nothing at all, to do with me.

Just to clarify. I AM claiming as a couple, I'm NOT claiming anything fraudulently. I hardly get any tax credits.

liney

Your boyfriend has chosen to move away, and now lives with his mother again, or choses to stay in hotels meaning he is short of cash. This is not a reason to not pay his way if he is tehnically living with you for 3 days a week. One would argue (and so would the benefits agency) that the boyfriend should be contributing towards the cost of running the house he lives in half the time instead of you claiming benefits to support yourself. The fact that you don't actually get any money off him is irrelavent - the onus is on you to get the money from him, not expect to have the shortfall made up by the tax payer because he choses to stay in hotels instead of at his other house (mom's). If he is required to travel with work out of the area then surely they would foot the hotel bill, so it is indeed a lifestyle choice he is making.

something_girl

mitchaa wrote: »

Yep it does, but where do you draw the line? O.P this is not aimed at you but there are many out there claiming to be single when they are not purely for benefit reasons.

Their alibi is, the ''im not financially linked'' excuse so they believe they'll never be caught as they both have single bank accounts.

This grey area needs sorting out, but how do you do it is the question? Your example above is obviously not fair, but neither is the system we have at the moment where it is so easy to abuse.

Perhaps a mandatory 2-3yr jail term for people openly abusing the system would sort it out. Put the fear back into it that it is wrong to falsely claim.

Or making it more financially rewarding to have a partner rather than being single??

Now that was a good post.

something_girl

liney wrote: »

Your boyfriend has chosen to move away, and now lives with his mother again, or choses to stay in hotels meaning he is short of cash. This is not a reason to not pay his way if he is tehnically living with you for 3 days a week. One would argue (and so would the benefits agency) that the boyfriend should be contributing towards the cost of running the house he lives in half the time instead of you claiming benefits to support yourself. The fact that you don't actually get any money off him is irrelavent - the onus is on you to get the money from him, not expect to have the shortfall made up by the tax payer because he choses to stay in hotels instead of at his other house (mom's). If he is required to travel with work out of the area then surely they would foot the hotel bill, so it is indeed a lifestyle choice he is making.

good post. I don't need any benefits to support myself, just wondered if it was relevant to now claim on my own. He did indeed, choose to work away and pay for his accommodation etc, as we are not married and he is not
'required' to be with me to support me or my children, as he is purely, a boyfriend. So going to work in a different area is neither here nor there, it doesnt affect me financially, nothing he does affects me financially.