mum on benefits can afford to keep her dds 2 horses

[jugofwildflowers]

This is a lovely mum by the way. She has never married but been with the same partner for 25 years and they have 3 dc. He works and has another home but stays in family home often, although because she is 'single' and on benefits, she gets everything paid for and her dc have free school meals. I assumed that as the mum was on benefits, she wouldn't have much money.

They have 2 horses and she spends a lot of the time with them. We have a mortgage and after all the bills are paid we don't have enough to keep one let alone 2 horses! Comes across as sour grapes, doesn't it? Sorry but

Well that's funny unless it's changed in the last few years I was told by the council benefits officer that my new partner at the time was able to stay as long as it wasn't more than three nights aweek

Oh and whenever I've claimed benifits as a single person, weather it was income support or working tax credits the paper work has stated that I must inform them if I start living with someone, not if I'm in a relationship with someone who lives else where and stays occasionally

There is a big difference between being a single Mum and then starting a relationship and having a relationship that has produced three children and claiming to be single.

I think the key is council tax i.e if you are paying registered at one property you live there and therefore are not supporting 2 household hence legit claims. I've heard of lots of men claiming they live with parents but are living with a 'single mother' just so she can claim everything going. That's just as bad as this situation.

i think the mother's relationship status should be less relevant. If you are a parent, either you look after your kids or you work & pay for your household or pay for someone else to do the childcare.

in the couple not together senario: so one of the parents stays at home while the kids are young. the other pays for them.

Little miss you're asking the wrong questions, but in summary -

1. people bought and continue to buy, where possible, their council houses because they are discounted (they used to be heavily so) and because they have been that persons home for many years. Often they have little choice because they could not buy a house on the open Market, and council tenants are usually happy to have the opportunity to buy their own home. They are used to the "quirky" features such as concrete structures in the garden/ pebbledashing/ lack of features in a way that a buyer who has never lived in social housing is not.

1. Not all new developments have to have social housing units (can just see the candy bros giving £25m apartments to social housing tenants) but yes, In the LAST FEW YEARs it has often been a condition of developement.

However I suspect you are hugely overestimating the number of houses built recently- even on the tail end of the boom. I work for a top 20 house builder and you are talking new builds in the thousands- not even 10s of thousands- yeilding a few hundred "social housing" units. Furthermore social housing in this context often means shared owndership.

So there you go, despite that being irrelevent to their ugliness I still took the time out to respond to your questions.

Have done some more digging. It turns out the father is staying with the mother and has been offered work in a local business as he's also unemployed.

They compete their horses nationally and they own them. They have done really well and dd is very proud of all the competitions her sister has won.

Sorry, but even if they had relatives who paid for the horses' upkeep I can't understand why it's the taxpayer who has to fund the rent, housing benefit, school meals etc!

Something is definitely not right. Or is it me tired after a day of working for little pay

Sacrelao has it right, it's not how many nights a partner sleeps over, it's far more complicated than that. Think about how many people have partners who are working in the Middle East for example or for the UK Armed Forces, who could be away for more than half the year, they are not allowed to claim benefits as single parent families. In our family, my husband was twice sent abroad for half the year, we couldn't even claim single adult discount on our council tax, if I had been treated as a single parent, I would have been able to work more hours and had 80% of child care paid for and more CTC and WTC. It was tempting to claim husband was no longer resident for those 6 months, I can see exactly why people do it. But is it morally right to have the state paying you for bringing up your children in these circumstances?

I bet they had French Toast. The bastards.

Competing the horses nationally - very expensive. Travelling horses around costs far more than they will win in prize money.

And prolly fed the horses croissants.

Sorry if they compete nationally they would be very well known so wouldnt be able to claim benefits cause the horse world are very good at shiting on their own. I should know been in horse world long enough.How old roughly these children and have you got proof/what makes you think they compete nationally?

I suppose ultimately if someone thinks that another person is committing benefit fraud it's a case of either do something about it or don't isn't it?

Just bear in mind that the lady in question may have a very special relationship with her horses. www.angelfire.com/az/clickryder/hand.html

They probably wear Hunter wellies as well, the gits.

If you are really, really that troubled - and lets face it you must be to spend so long 'digging' - what are you going to do about it?

I cannot imagine being that interested in someone elses financial arrangements.

The lastest horse was shipped over from a European tax haven country where they lived and competed before coming here.

Ok, I have admitted it, I have sour grapes because this is simply not the case of a single mum needing state handouts by any stretch of the imagination.

It reminds me of a time at university when I had a very wealthy friend who had a full grant because her dad's company accountant knew how to get around the system.

I'm not going to shop her though as her dd is lovely and thinks the world of her horses. May be I can ask for a ride instead.

& i'll just work out another way legal to lower my tax bill (because i'm entitled to)

......& we'll all live happily ever after...wont we?

You are not going to shop her?

Blimey.

What was all this about then?

i think its quite reasonable to feel disgruntled that someone on benefits can have a better quality of life materially than you if you work. after all you are paying for her benefits. seems really odd that maintenance isn't taken into account..though know this might not be relevant here.

i was a bit irritated when a mother at football the other day expected sympathy because her benefits had been reduced. why she expected the other working mother and me to feel sorry for her i don't know...bearing in mind her company had begged her to work longer hours but she declined.

benefits should be to provide a minimum subsistence level, ideally as a short term fix, not a life of luxury

I wanted your opinions, and have made my mind up based on them.

cba to read the thread

I expect its full of 'shop her' and all benefit claimants are scum hysteria