Page 8 | To ask whether anyone here has ever been investigated by DWP for “living with a partner”?

Original poster

Labradorlover987 · 22/09/2025 18:07

Burningbud1981 · 22/09/2025 18:06

Double check the interview isn’t under caution.

As long as she can prove her partner isn’t financially supporting her and he maintains a residence elsewhere she should be fine.

if not…

Edited

Show quote history

I will do, thank you

OP posts:

Burningbud1981 · 22/09/2025 18:06

Labradorlover987 · 22/09/2025 18:04

I know she had a message online about a compliance interview which is next week - she’s asked me to accompany her to this

Show quote history

Double check the interview isn’t under caution.

As long as she can prove her partner isn’t financially supporting her and he maintains a residence elsewhere she should be fine.

if not…

1clavdivs · 22/09/2025 18:05

JenniferBooth · 22/09/2025 16:17

This was posted by @LangClegsInSpace on a thread on the feminism board a couple of years ago and it resonates here.

There's a reason for this and if you've never been on benefits you won't know.
If you can meet your own housing costs and bills without relying on the state then you have the luxury of forming relationships gradually. You can take your time building trust, you can sleep together as many or few nights as you please, and nobody counts, and you can keep both properties so you have your own home to go back to if it all goes horribly wrong. You can move in together, part or full time, and keep some or all of your finances separate, for a while or permanently. You can take 6 months or 20 years to fully share everything. You can go at the pace of your mutual trust and it's no-one else's business.
Women on benefits are not afforded any of those luxuries. You are either single or in a couple and there is no inbetween. If you are in a couple then you must share your home and all of your finances straight away. If you are single then you must share nothing. Any relationship grey area that normal people enjoy will get you investigated and may result in loss of income, including your rent, and so your home.
Women on benefits are normal women and so have the same relationship aspirations as everyone else but they are in a much more risky and precarious position because the benefit system forces them at an early stage into an all or nothing situation with any potential partner.
It's not that 'these womwn have the worst taste in men', it's just that they get stuck with them, having been required to share everything at far too early a stage in their relationship.
This is a huge part of why women on low incomes are vulnerable.

These are good points. And it seems that the state is very ready to recognise you formally as a couple when it suits them to do so on the grounds that you do your laundry together or share food shopping, but if one of you dies and there might be inheritance tax up for grabs, you're only recognised as a couple if you're actually married.

Original poster

Labradorlover987 · 22/09/2025 18:04

Burningbud1981 · 22/09/2025 18:00

First of all is the compliance interview under caution ? If so then she’ll need urgent legal advice.
she would have had a message to say they have information to suggest she’s living with a partner. If she’s ignore that and not replied to UC the next step is compliance.

There are no set nights a partner can stay as long as they are not financially supporting and maintaining their own residence elsewhere. UC are looking to see if they are living together as a married couple (LTAMC). The guidance for UC decision makers is available on line

Edited

Show quote history

I know she had a message online about a compliance interview which is next week - she’s asked me to accompany her to this

OP posts:

Puzzledandpissedoff · 22/09/2025 18:02

Coconutter24 · 22/09/2025 16:55

How is it unfair? If they didn’t investigate every report imagine the thousands of pounds that could potentially be fraudulently claimed.

Show quote history

A frequent narrative on here is "keep your beak out", "fraud is only a TINY % of benefit claims" and "what about Amazon" Coconutter ... to some we're not supposed to think than more than one thing can be wrong at the same time

The boyfriend who does groundworks for cash in hand sounds dubious too and the DWP have seen it all before, so good luck to the claimant trying to insist he doesn't really live there

Burningbud1981 · 22/09/2025 18:00

Labradorlover987 · 22/09/2025 17:49

Yeah I think she does tbh - I know she gets her rent paid by UC and then gets the single person element of UC & council tax reduction

Show quote history

First of all is the compliance interview under caution ? If so then she’ll need urgent legal advice.
she would have had a message to say they have information to suggest she’s living with a partner. If she’s ignore that and not replied to UC the next step is compliance.

There are no set nights a partner can stay as long as they are not financially supporting and maintaining their own residence elsewhere. UC are looking to see if they are living together as a married couple (LTAMC). The guidance for UC decision makers is available on line

Coconutter24 · 22/09/2025 17:52

JenniferBooth · 22/09/2025 17:46

FFS im merely pointing out that the rules for single parents mostly women seem to be different than for men like my neighbour The misogyny is baked in.

Show quote history

They’re not different though, the same rules apply! I certainly haven’t said what he’s doing is ok

Original poster

Labradorlover987 · 22/09/2025 17:49

ChicJoker · 22/09/2025 17:47

Didn’t even know this was illegal. Presumably she pays all the bills?

Yeah I think she does tbh - I know she gets her rent paid by UC and then gets the single person element of UC & council tax reduction

OP posts:

ChicJoker · 22/09/2025 17:47

Didn’t even know this was illegal. Presumably she pays all the bills?

JenniferBooth · 22/09/2025 17:46

Coconutter24 · 22/09/2025 17:41

I understand that but you didn’t report him so you can’t really complain about him receiving financial help

Show quote history

FFS im merely pointing out that the rules for single parents mostly women seem to be different than for men like my neighbour The misogyny is baked in.

NuovaPilbeam · 22/09/2025 17:44

If you genuinely live separately its not an issue, and its not hard to prove either. Your partner will have bills, mortgage or rent contract somewhere else, debit card statements showing shopping deliveries to their own house, pets with that address registered with the vet, electoral records.

Where people get suss is when you have a 40 year old bloke saying he doesn't live with his UC claiming girlfriend, he lives with his mum/mate tom/sister, but he:

sleeps most nights with the gf
doesn't pay rent, mortgage or bills anywhere else
has "her" address on his tesco/amazon/deliveroo account

It doesn't add up.

herbalteabag · 22/09/2025 17:43

I had a letter many years ago when I was receiving tax credits saying they suspected someone was living with me. I was very surprised as I wasn't in a relationship at all and no one even came round. I later realised that my ex had used my address for a mobile phone contract. Nothing happened and I didn't hear anything else, but it was easy to prove as he lived permanently out of the country.

Coconutter24 · 22/09/2025 17:41

JenniferBooth · 22/09/2025 17:39

WTF are you on about Hes just a neighbour the HA has stuck underneath me His elderly mum is using her pension to pay for him

Show quote history

I understand that but you didn’t report him so you can’t really complain about him receiving financial help

JenniferBooth · 22/09/2025 17:39

Coconutter24 · 22/09/2025 17:11

Well you’ve answered your own question there,
So he can spend his UC on booze. Why is this allowed then?
He isn’t allowed but he wasn’t reported. Dwp can’t do anything about it if someone doesn’t tell them.

Im assuming by you bringing your neighbour into the thread when I said aslong as you weren’t buying food for partners place then you aren’t doing anything wrong and you didn’t answer that? Does that mean you were financially contributing to his place?

Show quote history

WTF are you on about Hes just a neighbour the HA has stuck underneath me His elderly mum is using her pension to pay for him

WiddlinDiddlin · 22/09/2025 17:31

I had to battle DWP over this years ago when I had a bloody lodger and they decided he was my partner! I had all the right paperwork from the council, and we did eventually win, but it bloody infuriated me.

At the same time, my sister, shacked up with her actual girlfriend - no investigation into that because they were both women.

Anyway, thats by the by - if the boyfriend can prove he is registered as paying council tax and bills/rent/mortgage at another property, then it's fine, they're doing nothing wrong.

Gymbunny2025 · 22/09/2025 17:27

JenniferBooth · 22/09/2025 16:17

This was posted by @LangClegsInSpace on a thread on the feminism board a couple of years ago and it resonates here.

There's a reason for this and if you've never been on benefits you won't know.
If you can meet your own housing costs and bills without relying on the state then you have the luxury of forming relationships gradually. You can take your time building trust, you can sleep together as many or few nights as you please, and nobody counts, and you can keep both properties so you have your own home to go back to if it all goes horribly wrong. You can move in together, part or full time, and keep some or all of your finances separate, for a while or permanently. You can take 6 months or 20 years to fully share everything. You can go at the pace of your mutual trust and it's no-one else's business.
Women on benefits are not afforded any of those luxuries. You are either single or in a couple and there is no inbetween. If you are in a couple then you must share your home and all of your finances straight away. If you are single then you must share nothing. Any relationship grey area that normal people enjoy will get you investigated and may result in loss of income, including your rent, and so your home.
Women on benefits are normal women and so have the same relationship aspirations as everyone else but they are in a much more risky and precarious position because the benefit system forces them at an early stage into an all or nothing situation with any potential partner.
It's not that 'these womwn have the worst taste in men', it's just that they get stuck with them, having been required to share everything at far too early a stage in their relationship.
This is a huge part of why women on low incomes are vulnerable.

This isn’t true though. A relationship can develop slowly (more slowly) without spending most nights together. And that is also better for any kids involved. That is the opposite of saying you must invite a new partner to move in immediately.

where resources are finite taxpayers money is far better off funding schools and the NHS than single parents who are ‘testing’ relationships

BadgernTheGarden · 22/09/2025 17:15

Labradorlover987 · 22/09/2025 13:11

My friend has just been asked to attend a compliance interview at the job centre - she claims universal credit as a single mother to 2 kids, and single person council tax discount she has a boyfriend but they don’t live together full time - he lives with his father - he obviously stays over 3/4 nights a week.

Just wondered what the process was etc

I knew someone doing this, basically the bf lived there full time with her and their children and literally jumped out of the window when SS turned up unexpectedly and ran back to his mother's, who he supposedly lived with nearby. At work he even bragged about how smart they were, and how they were getting all these benefits and were too clever for SS. It really annoyed me at the time and I hope your friends do get caught.

Original poster

Labradorlover987 · 22/09/2025 17:15

slashlover · 22/09/2025 17:06

So it's a new relationship and she lets him stay over half the time with her preteen kids?

Show quote history

I think they’ve been together maybe 7 months? Just to caveat - this isn’t me and I don’t feel like she’s acting in the best way (she was married to an abusive man before so don’t think she has amazing judgement)

OP posts:

LakieLady · 22/09/2025 17:14

It was a few years ago now, but I did an appeal for a client who'd had their benefits stopped because they deemed her to be living with a partner.

She had dreadful neighbours who harrassed her, and was vulnerable because of mild learning disability. She would spend much of most days at either her boyfriend's or family members, to avoid the neighbours, and often cooked for and ate meals with her boyfriend because he had physical disabilities that made cooking challenging. However, she didn't often stay overnight at his, or he at hers.

At the tribunal, the members seemed most interested in the evidence we had of the harrassment, and where she kept her clothes etc.

The appeal was successful.

Coconutter24 · 22/09/2025 17:11

JenniferBooth · 22/09/2025 17:05

No because this is what hes like when he doesnt get his booze.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4877365-to-think-housing-associations-should-have-more-accountability-who-they-choose-to-allocate-homes-to

Show quote history

Well you’ve answered your own question there,
So he can spend his UC on booze. Why is this allowed then?
He isn’t allowed but he wasn’t reported. Dwp can’t do anything about it if someone doesn’t tell them.

Im assuming by you bringing your neighbour into the thread when I said aslong as you weren’t buying food for partners place then you aren’t doing anything wrong and you didn’t answer that? Does that mean you were financially contributing to his place?

janiejonstone · 22/09/2025 17:11

slowraindrop · 22/09/2025 13:34

From the Advice Now website:

“Just because your partner stays the night with you, even if they stay most nights, it doesn’t mean you are living together. If your partner still has a home somewhere else where they pay bills and keeps their things, and you make day to day decisions about your home and finances on your own, then they probably don’t count as living with you.

If you have been contacted by the benefits office because they believe you are living with your partner when they haven’t actually moved in, you will need to show them that your partner doesn’t live with you. Usually, the easiest thing to do is to prove they live somewhere else.”

This. Having a boyfriend who sleeps over is not at all the same as a partner who lives with you, shares income and is jointly responsible for rent/mortgage, bills etc. What they're checking is that she doesn't have another adult living with her who shares the financial responsibility of the household. Which she doesn't.

Being a single parent is hard enough without MN setting a limit on the number of times a week you're allowed to see your boyfriend before you're labelled a benefits scrounger.

slashlover · 22/09/2025 17:06

Labradorlover987 · 22/09/2025 13:28

It’s a fairly newish relationship - he isn’t the father of the kids - but yeah I think he stays a good few nights - guessing one of the neighbours reported her 🤷‍♀️

Show quote history

So it's a new relationship and she lets him stay over half the time with her preteen kids?

OnlyMabelInTheBuilding · 22/09/2025 17:05

Labradorlover987 · 22/09/2025 17:00

I was just thinking if it was an abusive ex for example, out to cause trouble

Show quote history

If they’re not really doing anything wrong, then investigations based on malicious grounds would be found to be fine.

Only an issue if they really are gaming the system.

Nothing unfair about that

Deepbluesea1 · 22/09/2025 17:05

Labradorlover987 · 22/09/2025 13:28

It’s a fairly newish relationship - he isn’t the father of the kids - but yeah I think he stays a good few nights - guessing one of the neighbours reported her 🤷‍♀️

Show quote history

what is fairly newish? a few weeks? Couple of months tops?

JenniferBooth · 22/09/2025 17:05

Coconutter24 · 22/09/2025 17:02

Did you report it?

Show quote history

No because this is what hes like when he doesnt get his booze.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4877365-to-think-housing-associations-should-have-more-accountability-who-they-choose-to-allocate-homes-to