How many nights can a partner stay over if you are on benefits? I'm worried my friend is going to get into trouble.

(71 Posts)
LucyLouLou Thu 12-Aug-10 15:31:20

I'm not asking for me, I don't have a partner and I'm not on benefits (pregnant, so things might change a bit when I've had my DD, but that's neither here nor there lol).

Let me preface this by saying that I have absolutely no intention of reporting my friend for benefit fraud here, so this is not a fishing expedition for that purpose. However, I am a little bit worried that she is accidentally committing fraud because she is not aware (as such) of the rules surrounding her partner staying in the house.

She has a baby DS with her DP. They have been sort of on and off a bit since during the pregnancy (DS is now 10m old) and he has never officially lived with her and DS AFAIK. Lately though, DP has been staying with my friend most nights of the week. None of his mail is registered at the address and if you looked him up on the electoral register (if he's on it) you would find him living at his mum's house. To an outside observer though, you would think he was living with my friend.

The problem is, she does not work (does intend to get a job though, two days a week so she can still claim benefits) so she claims housing benefit, council tax benefit and the like, and does this as a single person. I haven't said as much to her, but I think she's in danger of getting caught out with her DP being there as much as he is. She thinks that because he is still registered as living at his parent's house, she isn't breaking the rules. I think she's wrong, but I don't know enough about the laws to tell her this definitively. I think I heard somewhere that she was allowed to have him stay over 3 nights a week, but I'm not sure how current or correct this might be.

I'm worried if she is in the wrong and was to get caught, she would have no way of defending herself. He is the father of the child, his name is on the birth certificate, and while I don't know what tactics investigators use to find out whether people are living the way they say they are, I'm pretty sure him leaving for work daily from her house would incriminate her.

Please someone tell me the rules. Like I said, I don't want to report her, but I do want to be able to tell her she's creating trouble for herself. I really get the impression she doesn't know she's making a mistake.

Thanks for any help and sorry for how long this is !

dizzy55 Thu 12-Aug-10 21:08:35

hi, From memory I think its only 2 nights a week. google the gov website on benefits, or ring a benefits helpline anoymously. good luck

StewieGriffinsMom Thu 12-Aug-10 21:13:46

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MrsMorgan Thu 12-Aug-10 21:17:35

The two nights rule is a myth. Your friend could get interviewed under caution for benefit fraud, and given what you have said, she would be found guilty.

toccatanfudge Thu 12-Aug-10 21:20:58

I believe there are a fairly longish list of "criteria" that they look at to determine whether someone is "living as a couple" or not......and as MM says - I belive the 2 nights rule is a myth as well.

MrsMorgan Thu 12-Aug-10 21:23:58

Basically, if it is someone who you were previously living with as a couple then you have literally no chance in hell of persuading them that you were not now living together, and they won't give a toss if it was one night, once.

Having said that, I asked them then, if that basically meant that if I met a bloke in a pub one night, and took him home, I was comitting benefit fraud, and was told yes.
Obviously that is ridiculous, but it is what that said.

abouteve Thu 12-Aug-10 21:24:06

Mrsmorgan, think this came up last night. (btw I claim minimum benefits and don't have a partner so no vested interest). If a man isn't contributing to the household and doesn't live there permenantly then is it still fraud? I cannot see how it can be. Although morally he should be living there if they have a DC together.

Someone I know is in this situation. He has his own place and she lives in hers and claims benefits as a single parent. 2 DC's together and very much a couple but don't live together. If he contributes it's in the way of holidays and nights out, stuff for the DC's so very similar to OP's friend. It sounds OK officially at least.

MrsMorgan Thu 12-Aug-10 21:27:10

Tbh eve I think there would be little chance of that not being classed as benefit fraud if he ever stays over there.

I am not saying that I think they are doing anything wrong, but thats how it will be seen by the dwp.

SrStanislaus Thu 12-Aug-10 21:28:05

I dont think there is a rule about how many nights as such. After all a partner can be working nights and only in the house during the day.wink

The real test is whether the partner is contributing anything to the household. That is paying bills in their name or making regular payments toward household costs. These can of course only be checked if there is a report to the fraud unit.

there is 'no 2 nights a week rule'

what the benefits agency look at is whether they are living as if they are a cohabiting or married if he stays over 5 nights a week, buys the food, contributes to the household bills etc then they well think they are 'living together'

Someone I know is in this situation. He has his own place and she lives in hers and claims benefits as a single parent. 2 DC's together and very much a couple but don't live together. If he contributes it's in the way of holidays and nights out, stuff for the DC's so very similar to OP's friend. It sounds OK officially at least

that is benefit fraud. living apart deliberately in order to claim as a single parent is fraud.

toccatanfudge Thu 12-Aug-10 21:37:05

but you see it is possible (although very hard to convince them) to claim as a single parent while still living in the same house are your exP/H while waiting for one of you to move out.

Thankfully I didn't have to go through the long form with the compliance officer when I applied for my IS as she saw sense as soon as I explained the situation (that I'd found a house, I qualified for the rent assistance scheme......but only once I was actually getting my IS).

abouteve Thu 12-Aug-10 21:38:50

PMSL that a one night stand might be deemed to be contributing to the household income.

People do this all the time. He's registered as living with friends/parents but really living with single mum who claims full benefits. If contributes cash, no record and not found out unless someone dobs them in or the DSS sits outside observing which does happen when someone dobs them in as they need evidence.

I can remember this happening to friends years ago and, no I didn't report them, and the DSS telling them if they see them staying over more then x no. of nights they will have benefit stopped. I also think they are more interested in people claiming full HB, IS i.e not working at all.

abouteve Thu 12-Aug-10 21:44:08

I don't think it is to claim benefits, primarily, it's more that they get on better living apart. It's only CTC/WTC that is claimed rather than full benefits. I know a few people in this situation, and I don't see how the DSS (or whatever they go by) can argue.

LucyLouLou Thu 12-Aug-10 22:12:17

Thanks everyone for your answers.

I will have to double check with her whether he is contributing financially. AFAIK, the situation as it stands is that he is staying there, rather than living there. To the compliance people, I'm sure that would not mean much, but I guess there is a distinction?

That said, I would assume he buys food and probably things for the LO. What he has there by way of clothing and toiletries etc, I don't know, but I'm pretty sure he's there for the majority of the week, so it would follow that he has quite a lot of things there.

I really don't think my friend is deliberately trying to cheat the system, I think she's more misunderstanding the way the law works. Again, I don't think that would work in her defence if/when compliance found out, but I simply don't think there is malice in her claim.

My worry is that if someone finds out and she has to pay back the money from HB and CTB, it will go back to at least when her son was born, which is going to leave her with thousands of pounds in debt. I don't know what to say to her. Maybe I need to find out more information, but I have a feeling she's already put herself in the shit....

mamatomany Thu 12-Aug-10 22:20:45

It's 0 nights on a regular basis, however the actual defining factor is financial dependancy if she can prove that she can live independently without his financial input and he is paying council tax else where then that is all that matters.
It's bills that matter not a bit of food or toiletries, is he paying the phone/sky/rent and is there a papertrail ?

toccatanfudge Thu 12-Aug-10 22:22:47

that's not true that it's 0 nights.

I could (after going through an extremely long form where they check EVERYTHING about your living arrangements) have claimed IS while still living in the same house as exH....

mamatomany Thu 12-Aug-10 22:22:52

But I f I was you I would keep out of it, the messenger always gets shot and if they are doing something wrong then they will rightly get caught and if they aren't then it's none of your business.
If you start poking your nose in and then a week later a letter drops through the door you'll be public enemy number one for snitching, even if you didn't.

mamatomany Thu 12-Aug-10 22:24:06

different situation toccanfudge and as you say they go through both parties finances with a fine tooth comb.

toccatanfudge Thu 12-Aug-10 22:27:32

not just finances - anything and everything that could show you were living together as a couple they go through. Do you eat together, cook together, do you have seperate cupboards for food, do you have separate rooms to sleep's MUCH more than just the finances.

As it's perfectly possible for one partner to pay for all the bills and have everything in their name - but still be absolutely living together.

solo Thu 12-Aug-10 22:31:41

I thought it was 3 nights a week.

mamatomany Thu 12-Aug-10 22:33:13

"As it's perfectly possible for one partner to pay for all the bills and have everything in their name - but still be absolutely living together."

Yes that's what i said.

toccatanfudge Thu 12-Aug-10 22:39:05

yes - so just going through the finances with a fine tooth comb could make it look like it was only one person living there - hence they don't JUST look at finances - infact finances are pretty easy to check it's the other stuff.....

mamatomany Thu 12-Aug-10 22:48:13

So how do they check whether you eat together or have sex then, I am now intrigued lol

toccatanfudge Thu 12-Aug-10 22:52:25

well - they can check that you have seperate food cupboards/shelves in the fridge, whether you have your own room or not (obviously doesn't stop you hopping into each others beds wink).

But I have heard that they are quite thorough and quite in depth with their questioning.......and certainly when I saw the size of the form they fill in I was VERY pleaeed when I explained the situation and she realised that as soon as I had my IS sorted I would be out of the house like a shot lol

LucyLouLou Thu 12-Aug-10 22:56:40

You have a good point mamatomany. I think I'll keep it to myself for now.

I would never report her, it's really none of my business what she does. If she brings it up though, I think I'll just try to clue her in somehow. I really don't want her getting stuck paying back thousands of pounds worth of benefits because she didn't pay attention to the rules. Naivety is not going to wash as a defence really, is it?

gillybean2 Fri 13-Aug-10 08:21:07

LucyLouLou if she lives anywhere like I live someone will dob her in.
Lots of people pay tax and really struggle to get by. And they resent seeing people who are 'bending' the rules, claiming what they shouldn't.

I was shocked when I heard that a lady I work with was dobbed in by her neighbours saying they'd seen her going out to work more hours than she should of. Nothing came of it because she hadn't, but she was investigated all the same. I was thinking people should mind their own business. But on some level it is all our business.

I also know someone who is doing a very similar thing to your friend. She has her house, which is paid for by HB, CTB and she gets IS. But she spends the majority of time at her partners house. He is the father of her younger two dc. She justifies it to herself saying that of course their dad wants to see them and it's closer for their school etc. I have told her to be very careful who she tells and what she says and that really she should move in with him officially. I know her reasons for not doing this (won't explain why here), but in reality she is living with him in all but name. I think she'd have a really hard time explaining the situation if she ever did get investigated.

It's so hard to know what to do. On one hand it isn't my business. On the other I feel morally obliged to tell her she is in the wrong here and could get herself in a serious mess. I don't want to see her and her dc end up in trouble over it, but in reality she could be dobbed in at any time by anyone. Especially knowing what people are like around here!

thesouthsbelle Fri 13-Aug-10 09:19:33

thing is thou DP comes here most nights a week (prob 5) I'd say but then again like end of the month he'll not be about for 4 weeks. At the minute I use his car as mine is off the road and I need to save to get a new one. some stuff of his is here (clotehs and such) but he pays a morgage and council tax else where. I can't afford to loose benfits as I can't we're afford to have him move in loose everything without him contributing, he can't contribute all the time he's paying for his DS's school/other household bills etc.

we're left with the only time we see each other is when he comes over here and the odd occassion I get to go to his on a weekend XH is with his dad. is he classed as living with me now - as if it's all about him coming over us cooking together/doing the chores etc (ie washing up) then we'd never see each other - at what point do they draw the line??

mamatomany Fri 13-Aug-10 10:02:01

thesouthsbelle if he is staying there 5 nights a week you are living together and stealing, i don't care what justification you have for your behavior, morally you are not a single parent, single parents do not have access to their boyfriends cars, the pay for tax and insure their own if they can afford one angry
Many step parents pay for two households and DS's school ? I thought schools were free for 97% of children.
This is what starts the benefit bashing threads off.

abouteve Fri 13-Aug-10 10:02:09

I'd say that if he isn't contributing financially and your are not actually living together then you are entitled to claim as a single mum. He is running his own home and pays his own mortgage/council tax.

To the OP, even if your friend did get caught doing something wrong. I am no expert but I doubt she would be asked to pay back £000's, how could they prove when it started. They would reassess her benefits based on the fact they were now a couple, living together, if in fact they are.

Niceguy2 Fri 13-Aug-10 10:03:33

I remember seeing a program on this a while back. As you can imagine, there's no single line. What they do is look at the whole picture.

So number of nights is one factor. Another is do you have kids together? Length of relationship?

And what about his own arrangements? For example, does your BF have his own home? Does he pay rent, mortgage and council tax there? Where does he keep his clothes, food etc.

In fact on one of the examples, they investigated a couple and cleared them because although he stayed over 4/5 nights a week, because he could show he paid rent and council tax at another place, they couldn't prove he "lived" together.

Personally I hope people like your friend get caught. People like them who "bend" the rules sponge off genuine taxpayers and make it harder for genuine people to get what they deserve.

thesouthsbelle Fri 13-Aug-10 12:27:27

mam - ref my car I am not paying for it at all I am saving for my own one. the whole reason I am using his one is as he doesn't need to use his one so has offered it - where is the difference between it being his or my parents one (which they need btw and is why I don't have his) fwiw I need the car to get to work as it's not on any bus routes other wise i'd bus it.

if he was to come over to my house cook tea etc and us play scrabble and him leave that's ok as he's not living there- even thou he's not living there now?

in the case of it being I am 'stealing' then things will stop and be brought into line as I do not want to be seen or accused of such. However also to that end am I not meant to ahve any friends to my house etc for tea either? (further more I do actually work, and also pay tax/NI - the top ups I recieve are minimal but I can't be without them)

thesouthsbelle Fri 13-Aug-10 12:28:23

oh and yes he does pay for the school as it's private & the child has SN therefore it will be paid for. angry you question that!

busymumm Fri 13-Aug-10 12:47:27

Lucyloulou, I was under the impression that it doesn't matter if your friend's partner is not giving her anything towards her bills, that's between the two of them. The point is that although he is earning money, he is benefiting from living in a free house which has been provided for a single mum with no income.

Staying most nights of the week will be counted as living together so his income has to be taken into account.

Otherwise I could claim my husband doesn't give me any of his money and as I don't earn any, my house and living expenses should be covered by benefits?

As I say, i'm not 100% certain but that's what I understood.

Niceguy2 Fri 13-Aug-10 13:32:13

But Busymumm, would you husband have a house elsewhere where he is paying utility bills, council tax & mortgage? Would the house be furnished, eg a bed where he sleeps, TV in lounge etc. etc.?

Does he have space for clothes at "yours"? Is his name on any bills at "yours"?

Plus the fact you are married, have kids together and not legally separated/divorcing is a big red flag.

It's not about absolutes but building an overall picture.

Southbelle's situation is in the grey area.

mamatomany Fri 13-Aug-10 13:45:24

Southsbelle The difference between your boyfriends car and your parents is that they have a moral obligation to help you but not a legal one of course, where as your boyfriend is helping you out because he's shagging you basically. So whilst he may not actually be giving you cash he is giving you benefits in kind that you would not have if you were as you claim to be a single parent.
If you get caught speeding in his car, there's then a paper trail, I also assume you are on his insurance, again paper trail connecting you financially to him, all of this is checkable.
You don't have to justify yourself on here but just be ready to pay everything back when you get a knock on the door, if you're struggling now it'll be worse when they demand it back won't it ?
Married couples who aren't claiming to be single parents spend weeks apart, women with husbands in the army away for 6 months at a time are counted as a couple, so why shouldn't you be angry

abouteve Fri 13-Aug-10 15:03:37

I thought army personell had to be married to get living quarters so therefore a woman at home whilst her forces husband is away in the army would be financially dependent on him and therefore not a single parent as Southbelle is so not comparable at all.

Mama, I think you are taking a lot of this out of context, some single mums have boyfriends, they are allowed. It could be that said boyfriend ends up living in the household and they stop claiming benefits but certainly in the early days of a relationship that doesn't happen just because he comes round for dinner and ends up staying a night or two, or he drives your car and vice versa.

GeekOfTheWeek Fri 13-Aug-10 15:19:14

Your friend is comitting fraud.

justonemorethen Fri 13-Aug-10 20:26:57

Even if it is fraud, lets face it he's "living with his parents" so is really not in a position to provide her with very much anyway.He's probably on crap money so the money the state "save" will be a pittance.

I have a boyfriend who is on/off but does do lovely holidays, meals out and nice presents.We don't actually like each other enough to get married or live together so he has his own house and we pay all our own bills etc.Could he support me? Of course.,but he is a boyfriend and that is a very different relationship to living together whether married or not.Should the State should be forcing people into live in relationships just to make admin easier/keep costs down.

mamatomany Fri 13-Aug-10 20:34:44

No the state shouldn't be forcing relationships but equally should the state be supporting people indefinitely either ? At some point you have to decide if you're in it together or not, if you are financially independent then it's a non issue.

toccatanfudge Fri 13-Aug-10 20:53:55

I think you'll find that most people aren't supported by the state "indefinitely".

And if there are children from a previous relationship involved then moving in together "just" so that the DWP doesn't get tetchy is a big risk.

It's a difficult balancing act having a Boyfriend and being a single parent

justonemorethen Fri 13-Aug-10 23:36:02

So Mama how long should the State give people to decide if they are in it together or not.
Financially independent is difficult to I said he pays for all the nice stuff, that's my lifestyle so does that count or not?

Can I say too I think single parents should get a dating grant... meet a new bloke and you can get a bit extra for a new top, pay for a drink and a taxi home. It's in their interest to get us paired up.
After 3 months of the same guy you don't get the grant (see if he's serious). After 18 months you get a months run on of benefits if he proposes.Maybe a discount on council run marriage venues.

mamatomany Fri 13-Aug-10 23:46:39

"as I said he pays for all the nice stuff, that's my lifestyle so does that count or not?"

Hmm I don't know, it's almost bordering on kept woman/prostitution so difficult to answer.
The law says could you manage your current financial position without him, so in the case of the other lady she needs his car to get to work therefore she is dependent on him, therefore they are a couple and she is stealing.
Could you manage without the "nice stuff" ?

justonemorethen Sat 14-Aug-10 00:05:13

Well actually when I worked full time I needed a car too. Mine needed £500 of work so I used his for 6 months because I couldn't afford the repairs on my wage.
I eventually gave up work 3 months ago because it wasn't car (MOT up as well as repairs) vs borrow one indefinately (sorry spelling).So essentially the state is now worse off because I claim IS and don't use his car even though now I am not "stealing"

Not having a go Mama it's just that there is so much grey I don't think it's worth the paperwork half the time. Especially when the government leaks money in house in so so many ways..

mamatomany Sat 14-Aug-10 00:09:37

It's a tough one isn't it, have decided I'm just jealous because we're on our arses and the computer says no.
I sit trying to do the maths over and over to work out whether or not we should bother trying to work our way out of our current situations, redundancy etc or give up and chill out for a couple of years but at what price (and I don't mean to the state).

pinprickle Sat 14-Aug-10 13:12:14

I'm also in a position where my boyfriend lives separately. He does stay over sometimes but we're certainly not living as man and wife and I would object to anyone trying to pressure us into doing so. It's not in the best interests of my children or us to rush into anything like that. He does pay for meals out, takeouts, gifts and days out, but those are extras and we can live without them. But why should I turn them down if he wants to treat us?

I'm very careful about who I tell about my financial situation, in fact with the mums at school I've denied being on benefits because I don't want tongues wagging and risk being reported. My partner does keep some toiletries and clothes here but then so does my sister, who comes over to babysit and stay the night every few weeks. I'll make sure I keep stuff like that tucked away in future if there's a risk that people will interpret it wrongly.

It's hard enough as a single parent to get out and meet people, let alone find someone who is willing to cope with the extra burden and inconvenience of someone else's children. It doesn't help at all if the men think they'll have to start paying for all the living costs of a single mum and her children as well.

Supercherry Sun 15-Aug-10 13:55:02

Back to the op- my sister was investigated for benefit fraud (false accusation) and they told her that she wasn't allowed to have a partner stay over at all, ever, while on income support as a single parent.

She asked about friends- and they said no to that too.

MrsMorgan Sun 15-Aug-10 13:56:20

That is exactly what I was told Supercherry.

thesunshinesbrightly Sun 15-Aug-10 23:34:38

When i went to the job centre to be interviewed(bitch spreading lies about me) the interviewer said it doesn't matter how many night's a partner stay's over you still have to inform them hmm

Niceguy2 Sun 15-Aug-10 23:42:47

SuperCherry. Ask them to put that in they don't.

MollieO Mon 16-Aug-10 00:00:54

I'm a bit hmm at some of the scenarios and justifications here.

There are plenty of single parents who work very hard to ensure they aren't on benefits and probably see their dcs less as a result. The thought that I am paying taxes to support people who are fraudently claiming benefit makes me see angry. I have absolutely no problem with my tax money being used to support those genuinely in need but from what I have read on this thread there are quite a few who seem to be taking the p*ss.

toccatanfudge Mon 16-Aug-10 09:15:27

you know the funny thing is - that obviously you do have to inform the council for council tax purposes and the like but if you're a single women with no kids and meet a man - and things develop and he starts staying over occasionally no-one would bat an eyelid.

How come single parents are lambasted for trying to walk the fine line that is staying single for ever, and being classed as "in a couple". It's bloody hard.

I've got a new boyfriend. I think it may have long term potential. But it's still very early days. Yes he's stayed over, but there is absolutely no way I would consider officially living together yet - I have to think of my children (who have met him and like him) who have already seen their parents separate.

Of course I could never have him over to stay........but then how do you develop a relationship (long term) with someone that you've never even spent a night with?

Of course if I could ditch the kids and just be a childless single women it would be easy and no-one would care if my BF stayed over......

MrsMorgan Mon 16-Aug-10 10:23:28

Totally agree Tocc, it is like they are saying that we are not allowed a life at all.

I was also told that I could only have someone stay over if I notified them first. How utterly ridiculous is that.

I did infact have someone stay over last week, but it isn't and won't be a relationship so why on earth should I tell anyone, let alone the benefits offices.

Why should we not be allowed the right to a private life.

mamatomany Mon 16-Aug-10 19:45:03

"How come single parents are lambasted for trying to walk the fine line that is staying single for ever, and being classed as "in a couple". It's bloody hard."

Because you are asking others to support you, whatever the reasons behind that when you are financially beholden to anyone you are in a precarious position.

GypsyMoth Mon 16-Aug-10 19:50:23

er,no,'re quite wrong there.....some of us DO work!!!

its a myth that single parents are all on benefits
its a myth that all single parents dont work

and personally i'd firstly prefer to support myself and my family....failing that i would prefer the state to,rather than gain a useless DH and end up posting about said inadequate DH on the mumsnet relationships board!!! just to get off benefits??? no thanks....

MollieO Mon 16-Aug-10 19:54:53

I don't think anyone lambasts single parents for dating. It is all about being honest. If you have someone who spends several nights a week with you and whose car you are insured to drive I would think that is a serious and committed relationship. Why should someone in that position claim benefits as a 'single' person when clearly they aren't.

The alternative of course is not to claim benefits and then you are answerable to no one and can do what you like.

ValiumSingleton Mon 16-Aug-10 19:56:46

I think a lot depends on whether the man is the father of one or any of the mother's children.

I have not had any romance since I left children's father, but is that really fair? tbh, I don't want that, it would complicate my life and I don't want to risk jeopardising my benefits and I certainly don't want to commit fraud for some 'randomer'. so not a problem for me, but I know that for some other people dating and romance and sex is like oxygen. I must be made of tougher stuff.

MollieO Mon 16-Aug-10 19:57:34

I don't understand why the alternative to benefits is a dh. It is possible to be a single parent and not claim benefits (other than child benefit which every parent gets).

ValiumSingleton Mon 16-Aug-10 19:58:46

Obviously that's just my opinion and not the legal situation! I just think that it's unrealistic to expect some guy who isn't your children's father to help you out with all the expenses. Maybe in wealthier middle-class circles where men with good salaries can afford that quite easily it is not such a big expectation, but further down the food chain, I think it is unrealistic to expect some guy whose wages aren't high to chip in for the kids of a woman he is dating.

MollieO Mon 16-Aug-10 20:00:48

Valium - same here. Nothing to do with benefits (ex doesn't support either) but everything to do with not having the childcare support to be able to go out and meet anyone (even if I was ready, which 6.5 years on I don't think I am).

mamatomany Mon 16-Aug-10 20:01:30

ILoveTIFFANY - so then we aren't actually talking about you or your situation at all are we ?

omnishambles Mon 16-Aug-10 20:07:44

But MollieO if you are working and getting tax credits for that and housing benefit then it really matters if you are classed as single or not - and as others have said its the transitional stage thats hard.

EG I was a single parent in a 1 bed flat with ds - I started seeing someone - he was paying his own rent/council tax and all his stuff was at his house a long way away but he would be over a few times a week comtributing nothing to the household - should I immeditaly phone up and declare it, lose all my benefits and not be able to pay my rent and then what would happen if I split up with him? It would take ages to get all the benefits sorted out again and by then I would be in debt.

What actually happened is that we committed to eachother, moved into a house and stopped claiming everything obviously.

GypsyMoth Mon 16-Aug-10 21:35:26

was once canges tho...and obviously if a LONE parent loses a job,then the other parent isnt thewre to fall back on....the benefit system is.....tackle the feckless fathers not the mothers! (occasionally its vice versa too)

MollieO Mon 16-Aug-10 21:47:49

omni obviously there needs to be some transitional stage. I completely get that. However when the transitional stage continues several for years and a high degree of commitment is made that is the time I'd seriously query if the single parent was really a single parent and entitled to benefits.

toccatanfudge Wed 18-Aug-10 10:09:32

mama - you missed my point entirely I'm afraid.

Single people on benefits who start seeing someone don't get the same level of distrust pointed towards then as a single parent on benefits who starts seeing someone.

since when did shagging someone a couple of times a week become a "serious and commited relationship"???

And to whoever said they're made of "tougher stuff" because they wanted to remain single - get a grip. I was perfectly happy single - could have carried on indefinitely like it - not an issue in the slightest if I'd remained single for the rest of my life.

However, I'm "only" wink 31 - and I still want to have some fun and see if I could ever do the whole relationship thing again.

I don't "need" a relationship - but I do want one and am rather enjoying having a boyfriend right now - doesn't make me soft hmm

mamatomany Wed 18-Aug-10 19:18:06

since when did shagging someone a couple of times a week become a "serious and commited relationship"???

Well that only you can decide but if it's for a year then yes it is a relationship, you can't have your cake and eat it.
And yes a single person who isn't a parent would be treated as a couple with certain situations such as being insured on each others cars, but then since a single person on benefits couldn't afford to run a car I doubt it comes up very often.

toccatanfudge Wed 18-Aug-10 20:01:37

I have friends who are insured on each others cars........I can assure you that there's no "relationship" between them other than very good friends.

Problem is with the couple/single thing - you don't get a year - 1 week of having a BF over for a shag to stay a couple of night and you can have benefits down your neck accusing you of fraud!

And you're STILL missing my point entirely anyhow - how many times do you hear people saying "ooo you know that lass down the road that's on JSA right now - well she's just met a new bloke and he's staying over really regularly - perhaps I ought to report her for fraud" - it just doesn't happen.

No-one ever gives a toss unless the poor "feckless" woman happens to have children in tow as well.

mamatomany Wed 18-Aug-10 20:17:03

I think you're being a bit paraniod, people do look down on anyone screwing the system, probably more so if they haven't got kids as there's no justification at all.
In your shoes I guess I'd alternate your bonking between his place and yours and twice a week is enough for anyone young lady !

toccatanfudge Wed 18-Aug-10 20:19:16

hahaha - I'm not worried about me per se - if it ever crossed the line (whatever that line is confused) where it was a relationship then I'd tell 'em and all that.

bonking at his is a little harder though as my ex is a twat who rarely has the kids - and still not overnight yet........

twice a week enough shock - you're mean wink

BarmyArmy Fri 20-Aug-10 16:09:32

It's just so wrong that the State is paying people to live apart - to make it harder for couples to live together as a couple.

This is the counter-argument to those that object to the Tories' plan to re-introduce some form of married tax allowance - and claim that the State shouldn't be supporting one kind of relationship over any other.

Well, it already does indicate its approval, by paying people more to live apart and for children to therefore be brought up in one-parent households.

Lunacy, sheer lunacy.

toccatanfudge Fri 20-Aug-10 21:05:14

Barmy - I rarely agree with you - I think you are rather Barmy - but I do agree there is definitely a disincentive for couples (that are in a stable enough relationship to live together, and who want to live together) to make that step.

I'm not sure there are many couples who are both biological parents of the children involved who are living apart because of the financial aspect. I think most such couples living apart are not ones where both parents are the biologicail parents of the children involved.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now