friend may go to prison for benefit fraud. AIBU to think its unfair her partner will get off scot free?

[balenciaga]

there is a back story here, which i will try and keep brief. my good friend has been with a guy on and off for 4 years, he was amazing at first and promised the earth as they do, then he became very abusive (mentally, physically and financially) and she was frightened of him. He even left her twice for 2 different women but she took him back. However, 2 months ago she finally left him (thank god) and moved back home to her mums and is starting again, looking for a house, a job etc.

she has 4 dcs and turns out she was claiming as a single parent the whole time he was with her :( I am not making excuses for her but she was scared to stop claiming as he would not contribute financially and she was scared of not being able to pay bills, eat etc. Also, he pressured her into keeping claiming (which I can WELL believe) and assured her it would be fine, no one would know etc - basically so he could carry on spending his wages like water living rent free and doing whatever the fuck he pleased.

she only told me a few weeks ago what had happened. while she was still with her ex, she had been called in for an interview with the fraud team at DWP as they had suspicions and she confessed it all to them. I couldn't believe she had done it TBH but as much as I absolutely do not condone what she's done I can kind of understand her reasons, its not black and white, yes I did think why the hell did you not leave him earlier etc but its not that easy is it :(

her court date was yesterday. because of the length of time she kept the fraud up for and the amount of money involved (over 33k and that's just HB and income support - ie before tax credits even ) the judge pretty much decided as soon as she went in that the case would go straight to Crown. Her solicitor has warned her that a prison sentence is a real possibility :(

AIBU to think this could be quite a common reason for women committing benefit fraud? and that the law seriously needs looking at and these cocklodging bastards of an ex should also be made accountable?? it takes two ffs !!

There is an imbalance in the system

DW and I live together. She is a SAHM and claims child benefit, but I earn over the max for it, so I am solely liable for paying back the CB from my earnings. There is nothing in the system to tell me that she's claiming, if she lied and told me she didn't get it there would be nothing flagged to me, so I would unknowingly make a false return to HMRC and be racking up thousands in liability. There is no liability for her at all.

In that situation, it is assumed that the couple have shared finance and shared knowledge. But if one partner commit benefit fraud (which is absolutely wrong) the other had no liability at all. Strange.

I wouldn't want anyone to move in full on full time my child without trialling a few days first to see that my child was comfortable with a new breakfast routine etc happymumofone - it's not about swinging from the chandeliers with a "parade of uncles" - stereotypical smug much?

I have a widowed Uncle who thought along the rigid lines you do - his kids met his new wife for the first time AFTER the wedding ceremony. Their response was not good, and was THE major contributory factor as to why the 2nd marriage didn't last.

I'll repeat it seems the benefit system isn't set up to help lone parents negotiate that grey area between casual first coffee shop date and marriage. Yet single mothers are under pressure from society to find themselves a man - even my son's last headmaster & CT used to drive me nuts with his constant snide comments about DS needing a good male role model. (he has them, just not of the sort that are sexually involved with his mum therefore they don't seem to count!).

Sorry, I was wrong about the 30 hours, IS is for those working 16 hours or less and I think also for those who care for a child under five (though maybe that used to be an older age cut off) - anyway, looks likely that at least some of the time, the youngest of the children was under 5 and not at school.

That is strange, Hermione, you're right.

IS is also for those unable to work due to caring responsibilities, so not entitled to whatever the unemployment benefit is currently called. Sadly many marriages break down due to the stress a disabled child brings I understand.

Hermoine - thanks for pointing out yet another odd anomaly. I know a couple of DV victims who only got away thanks to the CB covering the costs of that initial flight to relatives or a refuge. Once men become aware of this that avenue of escape will also slam shut for DV victims, as I expect it all ready has for the wives of higher earners.

People who have read bochead and Rommell's measured insightful posts and are still being undilutedly harsh must be suffering from a major empathy deficit.

"I'll repeat it seems the benefit system isn't set up to help lone parents negotiate that grey area between casual first coffee shop date and marriage."

Bochead has nailled a big part of the problem here. How come none of the hawks want to discuss THIS??

I can't imagine how that conversation goes. Asking someone who you quite like and who quite likes you exactly where the relationship is going. As in, do you like me enough yet to move in and take full financial responsibility for me and my four kids? That's a big ask. If she was working full time and self supporting it would still be a big ask. Four children is a houseful. To find out you have to pay for them a would scare a lot of men off if they weren't head over heels in love or a high earner or a knight in shining armour type. It's a lot of pressure on relationships.

It does seem as if the deck is loaded in favour of the feckless and the abusive partner when he be the cocklodger or the absent bio parent. I can only conclude that our society is still deeply misogynistic at heart, despite all the so called leaps of progress in favour of women and children over the last few decades

this ^^

It's probably not set up to help negotiate dating because that isn't the governments concern.

Actually I think the system does allow for grey areas. They look at the big overall picture rather than just if someone stays over. You can also be found to be living with someone if they never sleep at your house, if you are financially linked (because people who work over seas don't sleep at home apparently)

Why on earth should the benefit system try to help dating? It's complex enough as it is.

It is a lot of pressure on new relationships, but what's the alternative? Get the state to pay for them for that first tricky couple of years?

What is the cut off when a couple are deemed to live. Together? Is it number of nights per week? Registration to vote, with GP etc?

There are DWP guideline determining cohabitation but they are wooly and require subjective judgement on the part of the decision-maker, largely revolving around whether the couple are 'known' as a live-in couple. So it's all a bit hit and miss. Thus these myths about 2/3/0 nights a week being permissable etc.

Gosh, thanks.

Plus any evidence of financial help from the partner. If you do a weekly shop together and he pays for example, that could be used as proof.

It's not set up for 50/50 residency either. Whoever claims the child benefit gets the benefit allowance. A non resident father who gets made unexpectedly redundant can't claim enough housing benefit to cover the spare room for his children who stay 50% of the time because well, why should the state potentially pay for two bedrooms for a child. There are a few rules like this which do seen unfair in some cases but you can see the wider logic behind. If we are opening people up to abusive situations though I think perhaps it should be looked at more closely.

People talking about empathy and understanding are missing the point that a crime has been committed here.

I can have sympathy with the fact that she was treated badly by this guy without thinking it's ok for her to steal thousands of pounds from the public purse or that it's a crime that should go unpunished.

Worra makes a very valid point that seems to have been completely ignored.

I read that they check Sky subscriptions and who pays the phone bill or internet.

Oh and I know that as soon as you declare yourself a couple to the DWP, a claim for JSA for example is put into joint names and paid only to one partner. For adults with no children, that could be the only income you get, even if it is only for a short time while seeking work. And it's being paid to a new partner who could easily turn out to be a manipulative, abusive twunt. Lots of couples have separate finances nowadays and I think it's important to have your own money for exactly the reasons above. But some of the most vulnerable in society are denied that protection. It doesn't sit right.

JohnFarleyRuskin - other than to ensure bio parents actually support their own offspring instead of expecting everyone else to do it for them as a matter of course, I'm really not sure what the state should do.

From this single Mum's perspective it looks like a blummin minefield!!! Before this thread my biggest worry about dating again after a decade was the potential for inadvertently inviting a peado into my child's life. I'd never considered that getting jiggy with another consenting adult could potentially land me in prison. My initial IS claim took 3 months to process, that's a long time to be left unable to put food in your child's belly. I do think the OP's friend was insane to let the man play revolving doors, because of the potential emotional damage to the kids, but can see why she'd want to protect the food on the table.

I've done a quick google and there don't seem to be clear cut guidelines anywhere to say how often a boyfriend can visit during the day/stay over etc, etc. As for the waffle on "known as a couple" - known to whom? The jealous ex, the school, the neighbours? Obviously I'd imagine shared utility bills or bank accounts would be fairly conclusive proof of a permanent relationship.

The most awful thing is that wolves can smell a potential victim a mile off, and so many single parents, at least in the first few years after a split ARE emotionally vulnerable. The predators hone in on that vulnerability.

Tetris can the child benefit be split? So each parent claims for different children and therefore HB for at least one child?

Sorry, I'm losing sight of the fraud and blathering on about the inequality of the situation again. Ignore me if I'm being irrelevant, I was just following on from the post about Child Benefit above.

If you google hard enough you can find some of the DWP guidelines for their staff on establishing whether a couple are a couple or not. There aren't guidelines on the number of nights anywhere because they don't work off the number of nights. Someone could never stay over night and still be classed as a couple.