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?

emmielu then stop listening to what they say and actually look at the rules yourself,you will clearly see there is NO limit or anything on how many nights a person can stay.
look at it logically if your mother comes and stays for 3 weeks because you are ill or whatever but continues to maintain her own house and has every intention to return do you seriously belive dwp or tax credits or hb would get away with saying it was an issue? no they wouldnt and they wouldnt even if it was not your mother.

to the poster above who said dwp have to prove a financial link with named bills (birds i think) no they dont.if they can prove it then they can use that as evidence of cohabiting but they dont have to, equally as such if they can prove it it automatically wont mean you are cohabiting people often have bills in other peoples names for many reasons.

mrs you are correct it is easyer if you do but be carefull what you use and only use stuff that cant be twisted. a mobile phone bill at his addie is enough

Sock - but we shouldn't have to double check everything we're told by advisors. When I rang to check something I was told by my advisor, I was told it's not true & give more advice. I then rang my advisor & told her only for her to tell me she had not heard of what I've been told & that they've obviously not been given the info on it yet. People get told different things to what's written on the website. Lack of communication is another problem.

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

He doesn't have to, this is the UK and as long as no laws are being broken, no one has to do anything. They can watch her all they want,if he is only staying a couple of times a week, then no action can be taken.

What she has been told is an abuse of power.

Going to London is fine, it doesn't matter who pays.

OP, If she has any more trouble, personally i would get my MP involved.

dwp have to prove a financial link with named bills

Not that wasn't me, i said that they have to show that he is part of the household and has been for some time and it will continue.

Birds - I know he/she doesn't have to provide this proof/evidence at all! Just that from experience of others I have known its the quickest way to get the 'investigation' closed and also next time said person decides to 'report' the claimant I believe its more than likely to be ignored.

So really it's just a case of getting them off your back as quick as possible. many people would find the intrusiveness of an investigation which involves checking up on the claimant to be unbearable and I was offering a solution to avoid altogether.

Disclaimer - I don't believe thay should have to at all.

I sort out abuses of power, sanctions etc inposed by the JC and we are telling more and more people to contact their MP's with their stories, as well as us refering many to MH charities for support,bad prsctice/advice is on the increase with staff cuts and 'temp' workers.

This sort of action on the DWP's part needs to be challenged, even trying to get 'evidence' together for some people is to stressful.

Birds - I wish I was suprised by the seemigly unlimited lack of proficiency within the JC but as I deal with HMRC in my line of work I am not at all

seemingly