To think the government don't want single parents to find love again?

[EnterWittyNicknameHere]

Perhaps a bit of a dramatic title, but i'm peed off on behalf of my friend.

He's been seing his new girlfriend now for almost three months. She is a single parent of 3 and claims unemployment benefits. Today my friend told me that he and his girlfriend need to slow their relationship down because she has been 'grassed on' and will lose her benefits if they continue the relationship as it is.

He has not met the children yet.

He stays there on a Fri and Sat night only when kids are at their father's house.

He will buy in a takeaway for him and his gf one of these nights (apparantly this isn't allowed?!)

The girlfriend had to attend a benefit interview today to assess whether or not she was fraudulently living as a couple. She told them the truth and was told to ask my friend to move in with her! Either that, or not have him stay over so often.

My friend phoned me and was absolutely terrified that he might potentially make his GF and her kids lose their money.

He's decided not to stay over there anymore until they are ready to move in together and be an official couple.

Wow.

Is this the norm? I'm a single parent too but haven't had a relationship since becoming single so don't know.

How on earth can this woman be expected to move in a man she's only known three months? She's not allowed to have him stay overnight without being investigated first. So basically he can pop over for a quick shag but can't hang around afterwards. And who said romance was dead?

Why should my friend and his GF be pressurised into making their relationship 'official'? Why should he be expected to move in and support this woman he's only known 3 months and her 3 children he hasn't even met?

It baffles me! And worries me. So when i feel ready to pursue another relationship, i'll have to let tax credits know when we start to have sex?

Why can't a single parent do the traditional courting/dating/getting to know you with someone with the government sticking their oar in?

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD,THERE IS NO RULE ABOUT THE 3 NIGHTS

sorry for shouting but im sick of this old chestnut always being said

DWP have to prove that the partner is contributing to household finances,eg money for food,buys weekly shop,his name on sky etc

it is difficult to prove

but op i think i get what your saying,basically how can they progress if at the first instance their expected to "live together"

its a really tricky one and i wish i had some answer to it,the benefit system does not encourage a couple to live together without a huge gamble on either side

well i think thats what your saying

The "rules" are not at all harsh. If you are a single parent, you get single parent benefits. If you co-habit with someone you do not.
What do you want to be different about that?

And they aren't expected to live together, they are expected to NOT. Thats the entire point.

WildWorld2004 Wed 08-Aug-12 18:14:07

Shes claiming as a single person so if shes in a relationship then she isnt single. You can not have people staying overnight no matter where your post goes or whether or not they contribute to bills

I am a single mother & was under the impression that i cant have a partner to stay over at all because if i have a partner i am not single.

WildWorld It's this sort of spectacular misinformation that upsets people like the OP's friends GF to be honest. Do you seriously think that the government can tell people not to have overnight guests? Really?

OP - Of course you are allowed to have a relationship whilst claiming benefits. What you are not allowed is to be living together whilst claiming to be single. If OP's friend is maintaining his own life elsewhere then the GF has NOTHING at all to worry about. She could have six or seven 'partners' come to visit her overnight if she so chooses... as long as they are not living together.

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch11.pdf this is a link to an actual definition of how the DWP etc class/define a partnership for the purposes of benefits
HTH

some people wrongly imho believe if you dare have boyfriend and he stays the odd night makes you and him responsible for each others finances and commitments

god forbid a single parent should have a love intrest apart from being a mother

OP, Your friend has been misinformed, she cannot lose her benefits if he stays twice a week.

If she is worried she needs to go to a welfare rights advisor. Who pays for the pizza is no one's business.

Yep, you guessed it we are all bitter and twisted and hate to see happiness in the lives of our claimants. Show us their bonfire and we'll piss on it from a great height.
D- for effort - go away and try harder next time

If that information has been given though, it must either be a 'temp' (who know very liitle) or someone who is power mad, with an axe to grind (quite a few of those in the JC).

I am a voluntary welfare rights advisor, that is how i unfortunately have contact with the JC.

Agree with birds- the jc person was talking bollocks. He can stay 2 nights. He can buy a takeaway.

The rules over cohabiting are unclear- there is no clear line between the two.

Other factors that may go against them in the future is if they holiday and shop together, have a child together, if her kids call him dad, if he has post go there, if he doesn't have another home, if he has storage space at hers etc.

Fgs!

Single parents ARE allowed to have people stay over, regularly. They ARE allowed to have relationships.

For the purposes of benefits, 'single' does not mean 'without any boyfriend whatsoever'

It means 'without a partner living with you and contributing to the household'

Op, I would suggest that your friend continue staying over maybe one night a week and that his gf keep very strict financial records showing he makes no contribution. Can't his gf go over to his for one night also if the kids are away?

I'm wondering if the post is just shit stirring.

What exactly is unfair about the rules? As was said above: if you're A single parent you get certain benefits which you don't get if you co habit. What on earth is unfair about that?

op cant your friends gf stop at his at weekends if she has no kids then

atleast they could continue building their relationship without this kind of pressure put upon them

and people wonder why theres so many single parent house-holds,yea gods its enough to put people of having a relationship and forever worrying about being reported etc

correct me if wrong but most build up to a serious relationship,they dont dive in with living together straight away,especially where kids are involved

Can I just add that not all "single parents" are in receipt of benefits? In fact some of us will having the only one we get removed from us in January.

there does NOT have to be a proven financial link.

a couple who have no financial links who live togather can be concidered to be cohabiting as a couple if for example no other property is maintained,friends and family belive them to be a couple (the claiment has to state this as dwp cannot ask anybody else) meals are shared future plans are made togather holidays togather ect.

for many years people have been saying things like" yep we socialise eat togther and share responsability for household chores/children but he dosnt pay for anything" then wondering why they get told they have commited fraud

cant do links on this pc because ive broken the pad thingy but go check out both tax credits and dwp claiment compliance its on there website. no financial contribution is irrelivant if household compersition is the question,

it is relivent if household income is the issue.as IIF anybody else is making any contribution towards normal household bills or regular cash payments then that is income.

if you dont belive me just try saying it in a interview and see what happens

She shouldn't stay at his, she should challange the person who needs their training getting up to date. The JC gets away with giving out far to much wrong information and not doing the follow up work that they should.

I have friends who temp in the JC and there needs to be changes made in most of them, the advisors are told to deliberately lie about 'the system', in some overworked departments.

Thanks all.

I'm just going by what my friend told me, but i trust that he's told me the truth as far as he's concerned.

Until she seeks further advice, he insisting that he doesn't stay overnight there again.

This whole interview has got him really shook up, and has thrown a bit of a spanner into their relationship.

He stays with his elderly parents so that's why she doesn't go there. He doesn't pay rent or anything though so don't know if the DWP will query this in further investigations?

I know that he sometimes buys daft things for the house. I.e. when we were out last week, she text him asking if he could bring in some milk and bread later that day. But it's never loads of shopping. He keeps a few toilitries there like deoderant and one outfit. He told me that his GF was asked this at the interview earlier.

I'll text him and ask him to have a look at this thread actually, and see if he can get some peace of mind. He's really fond of this girl and i hope this isn't the end of them.

A time period needs to have passed for the couple to be considered co habitating, though and three months without other conditions being met ,isn't enough.

Each case has to be decided differently, as there does't always have to be a sexual relationship.

The OP's case does not qualify as co-habitation and it can continue without penalty.

He doesn't pay rent or anything though so don't know if the DWP will query this in further investigations

THey might but they wouldn't find anything wrong with it.

He is not part of 'the household' as part of her entitlement is the children, they are not playing happy families. He stays over, that is all, having clothes there for once a week does not break the rules.

Forgot to add (since some of you have mentioned holidays).

Her birthday's coming up and, as it's on a weekend, he was planning on taking her to London for two nights. Would this be allowed? They'll be staying together but not in her house.

There is quite a lot of misinformation in the OP, but govt policy definitely doesn't help LPs establish relationships. I met my DF after years of being a LP, and we never fell foul of benefit rules because I've looked at the cohabiting rules carefully and kept things very separate. It does mean that we've not been able to share things in ways that most couples would.

But the rules will mean that I have to be more careful about moving in than other women. As soon as he does move in I will no longer get any means-tested benefits (I am a carer to my disabled dd so can't work), and he will be fully responsible for me and my dd who isn't his (her bio father is dead so don't get maintenance). That is quite a big loss as she gets extra disabled child tax credits, we get full HB etc, but we won't even get child benefit from next year.

What we have had to do is agree to not live together until we are married, because it feels wrong to put him in that position unless he is fully committed to us as a family, and I don't want to put dd through the upheaval of moving into his home that is entirely in his name with the security of marriage. Most relationships are able to have trial periods of living together and most stepparents don't expect to have to contribute to existing dc, but we can't really do that. I'm very lucky that DF is understanding about all this, and can manage the extra costs of taking on our household, but I know many others in this situation who have just had to continue living apart because the child is treated immediately as the new partner's responsibility.

It annoys me that there's so much confusion on what we've all been told. When we get advised something from them, you'd think they'd all nod & agree it's right, but they don't. I've been told unless you live together 2-3 nights stays are fine. If you live together you are classed as a married couple. If the overnight stays are what you opt for then you're fine as long as he doesn't pay bills & you don't feed him. Yet my friend who got reported was told it's only 1 night a week & that because he sees her son (not real dad to her son) then they're classed as a married couple & that her benefits need to change all because the nights he stayed, her son was there too.

It's no wonder none of the single parents know if they're coming or going.

dwp are not able to ask him anything,he is not the claiment,they can also not ask her to provide any evidence that is solely his i.e proof of his arangement with his family.
they cannot ask where he sleeps or if they are intimate however if she does provide them with info they can use it,they just cant ask for it.

i once sat in a interview with a very liberated and cool lady who was asked things she shouldnt have been i cracked up laughing when she replyed "well im fucking 3 different blokes at the mo any clues on what one you decide im in a relationship with? as im sure there wives may take issue with that" fwiw she actually wasnt intimate with anybody and hadnt even had a visitor for years cos she was never in but it cracked me up

thank you other people that agree the system is mad

It is wise, however, to make sure that boyfriend can prove he lives elsewhere. (Shouldn't have to to my mind - but hey, if it keeps them happy its worth it surely?)

By proving he lives elsewhere it's simply a case of being registered on electoral roll at his own address, his home address held by bank accounts, home address held by employer etc. Not everyone is named on bills (ie adults still living at home as OP's friend appears to be) but it is easy enough to provide proof that he lives there without bills.

If OP's friend does not have this type of evidence I'd suggest he gets some quick smart

Pixie - I literally pissed myself laughing at that

Someone reported a neighbour of mine for this a few years ago, we had a laugh at the things we'd like to say when they interviewed her (at home and I was there for moral support) but when it came down to it she just provided proof as per my post above as we were a couple of scaredy cats

Its correct that they canot force you to provide this proof (of another persons residence), but trust me its the easiest way to get rid of 'em! Its far easier than trying to prove a negative if you get my drift...