We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
ESA/DLA: Marriage but not living together?
Options
leamingtonspaceman
Posts: 201 Forumite
Hi.
I was asked a question today and had no idea as to the answer.
An ex-work colleague has been claiming ESA (WRAG) and DLA (low rate mobility, high rate care) for about three years now. He is 37, lives on his own and has a girlfriend who lives on her own. She is 42. He lives in rented accommodation and claims full HB and CTB. She has a mortgage on her own home and works full-time and claims no benefits whatsoever. They were going to get married and live together and he was aware that his ESA would stop once they moved in with one another. However, due to various reasons that have just recently transpired, they cannot actually live together for at least the next 12 months. Despite this, they still want to get married...even though they will be living apart. This is mainly because if the wedding is cancelled, they will lose quite alot of money because various things have already been booked and paid for.
There are no young children involved in this.
If they do get married but remain in their seperate homes, how will this affect his benefit?
Would he still get ESA, DLA, HB and CTB?
I know these are very unusual circumstances.
Thanks if you can help:)
I was asked a question today and had no idea as to the answer.
An ex-work colleague has been claiming ESA (WRAG) and DLA (low rate mobility, high rate care) for about three years now. He is 37, lives on his own and has a girlfriend who lives on her own. She is 42. He lives in rented accommodation and claims full HB and CTB. She has a mortgage on her own home and works full-time and claims no benefits whatsoever. They were going to get married and live together and he was aware that his ESA would stop once they moved in with one another. However, due to various reasons that have just recently transpired, they cannot actually live together for at least the next 12 months. Despite this, they still want to get married...even though they will be living apart. This is mainly because if the wedding is cancelled, they will lose quite alot of money because various things have already been booked and paid for.
There are no young children involved in this.
If they do get married but remain in their seperate homes, how will this affect his benefit?
Would he still get ESA, DLA, HB and CTB?
I know these are very unusual circumstances.
Thanks if you can help:)
0
Comments
-
What are the reasons for the 12 years? Are they purely financial?SPC #1813
Addicted to collecting Nectar Points!!
0 -
What are the reasons for the 12 years? Are they purely financial?
12 years...of what?
EDIT: Oh sorry, you mean the 12-months...doh...sorry!
It's a long story really and not something I'm able to post on here as it isn't my issue and I only know part of the story myself. It's basically that his partners daughter who is 25 has got to move back in with her mum...and he doesn't really get along with her so it would be very detrimental to all concerned for him to move in if they get married. It would certainly be detrimental to his health. There are other issues but I don't know the full details.
However, does it matter what the reasons are? If a couple get married but choose not to live together, that is their choice surely?
They still want to make the committment of marriage, despite the issues.
What would happen if a couple were married, lived together, then broke-up. If they then parted and one of them claimed benefit, the fact that they were still married would not be an issue?0 -
It's 12 months (if you refer to the time they will need to live apart).
I think they will have to have a very good reason to show why they are getting married but cannot live together for another year.DMP Mutual Support Thread member 244
Quit smoking 13/05/2013
Joined Slimming World 02/12/13. Loss so far = 60lb in 28 weeks :j 18lb to go
0 -
To affect benefits in general, they need to be 'living together as husband and wife'.
This cannot be true if they do not share a household.
If they share any finances, keep possessions at the other persons house, sleep over often, and such things - this may go towards sharing a household.
They can in principle be determined to be using both houses as one, and share a household that way.
But in order for them to be found to be LTAHAW - they need to be in addition to publically acknowledging their relationship - which a new marriage doesn't get more explicit than - living together.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/fraud-guide-living-together-investigations.pdf may be of use.
The simple fact of being married does not of itself determine this.
Though it _must_ be disclosed in any claims.
Living together does not affect DLA.0 -
I think the biggest issue here is the situation with the daughter of his 'wife-to-be' moving back in with her mum. The house is only two bedrooms and if the 'husband' did move in with the two of them, it would be very detrimental to his health, his 'wifes' health and her daughters health.
They desperately want to marry and show a committment to one another...but there really is no way he could move in whilst the daughter is there...it just wouldn't work.
He suffers with anxiety and depression and his partner is very supportive. She helps him alot, despite working full-time.
I guess that if they did marry then there would be an investigation that could go either way really. I suppose the 'safest' bet is to not marry and postpone the wedding...and just 'write-off' the losses.
Shame:(0 -
couldnt she move in with him and dd live in mums house for a while?0
-
-
rogerblack wrote: »To affect benefits in general, they need to be 'living together as husband and wife'.
This cannot be true if they do not share a household.
You won't find many agreeing that a married couple shouldn't be treated as if living together, but you are correct for benefit purposes.
There are all sorts of definitions in benefits legislation that might not fit with common practice. A couple is defined as 2 people (married or not, but LTAHAW) in the same household. They can be assessed as a couple if temporarily apart having shared a household. Maybe they shared a flat and are now with their respective parents waiting to move into a new home not ready yet.
It sounds a bit odd but it is actually logical. Being married is not supposed to put one at a disadvantage (for benefit purposes) hence the rules treating non marrieds the same.
If a couple (normal definition) in a relationship planned to live together but hadn't yet done so, they wouldn't be treated as a couple (benefit definition). So neither should a married couple who haven't yet shared a household.
I once had a case of a pregnant teen, disowned by her family and housed by the council in a B&B. She and the father had got married but she couldn't stay with him at his family either and he was very low waged. So they'd never lived together.
That's how I discovered the definitions. My colleagues thought I was potty. :rotfl:0 -
I used to claim Income support while being technically married but not living together. We had separated. In fact I claimed for a few months while we did live together and were married, as we had separated (the house was on the market, he was off living it up with various girlfriends and just using the house as a doss house) Though we were married and living in the same house, DWP were happy that we were not living as husband and wife and approved the claim. I will add (before I get jumped on) that I only applied for IS at this point on the insistence of my health visitor, I assumed I was entitled to no help until we lived apart. But yes once the house was sold I claimed as a single person even though we remained married for a few more years (until we could afford to get divorced!)
The DWP look at your relationship status and where you live, they can legitimately be married but not living together.0 -
I used to claim Income support while being technically married but not living together. We had separated. In fact I claimed for a few months while we did live together and were married
Yes, that's not uncommon (although initially difficult to get it accepted as "separated but under the same roof") but a good illustration of how things aren't always as straightforward as something first appears.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.6K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards