Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be annoyed by this (yes, benefits related, sorry)

406 replies

Spotbakesacake · 18/04/2014 12:15

Name changed for this.

Dsd is with is is week. She randomly just dropped in to the conversation that her mums bf has moved a lot of his stuff back to his parents as he has moved back there in order that they can get more money which they need to buy a house in August. He still visits every day and stays over some nights. She was talking about his Xbox and said it was at his parents as he needed to have enough things there to convince 'them' that he didn't live there anymore.

To me this reads that he has nominally moved out in order that the mum can claim housing benefit again (as she only works a couple of days a week)

They have reserved a new build house that should be ready in august, dsd says they don't have enough money for it yet though.

The bf is in a well paid job, I think he earns nearly as much as dh actually. They are obviously impatient to move which I do understand. But this doesn't seem a very honest way to go about it. Dh and I saved for ages to have a house deposit.

Dh told me that his ex has been investigated for benefit fraud before although I have no idea what for, that was years ago. I only know because she thought it was him that reported her (he wasn't)

It's not that I have anything against dsd mum, I don't really know her but she seems nice enough. And it's not that I have any plans to try and report her or anything (unless people think I should!) I realise I know nothing like the full story. I'm just feeling rather grr about it.

OP posts:
LineRunner · 18/04/2014 15:20

OP How's your step-daughter coping with the change in living arrangements and the planned move? Big stuff for an 8-nearly-9 year old.

Original poster
Spotbakesacake · 18/04/2014 15:21

vampyre

Because

A. I don't have the full facts (which I have admitted a number of times, I'm not saying I know any of this for a fact, I was just drawing a logical conclusion from dsd wording)
B. because I have no wish whatsoever to get dsd mother in trouble. When I said I was happy she was settled I meant it. To whoever said I was not effusive enough when I said she seemed nice enough, that's only because I just don't know her that well, but I know she's had a hard time and I am glad she's found someone to be happy with.
C. Because I would never do that to my dsd either.

OP posts:
LineRunner · 18/04/2014 15:21

No-one knows if anyone is breaking any rules, actually.

My understanding of the rules is that if you don't live together then you don't live together.

HappyGirlNow · 18/04/2014 15:22

Really well said badidea

Thomyorke · 18/04/2014 15:23

You have no knowledge if the ex is compliant in her boyfriend deciding to move back in with his parents or if he has decided not to pay someone else's rent when he could be saving for a deposit. I have known quite a few men who have not moved their girlfriends in until they have bought in their name and their name only. You have a nine year old girls words and your interpretation. I find the use of boyfriend and not DP interesting and as this is about interpretation and not facts I could assume that this is not a long term relationship but more casual, not that there is any fact to that but why let that stand in the way. Has he moved out to save his money, for his deposit, for his security and as a boyfriend has no responsibility for his girlfriend ( not wife/ mother of his children).

HappyGirlNow · 18/04/2014 15:23

They've never asked linerunner Sad Maybe one day...

Original poster
Spotbakesacake · 18/04/2014 15:24

linerunner she seems fine, she's generally a pretty laid back kind of girl! She loves her mums bf and can't wait for them to get their new house.

OP posts:
Original poster
Spotbakesacake · 18/04/2014 15:26

thom boyfriend Is just my preferred term, it's not relevant. They are very serious, they've been living together for the last year and are making plans to get married.

OP posts:
Borka · 18/04/2014 15:31

Him moving back with his parents might have nothing to do with benefits at all. He will be able to get a bigger mortgage as a single man without dependants - this could be what he's said to you DSD about getting more money for the house.

VampyreofTimeandMemory · 18/04/2014 15:31

hopefully then you'll do her a favour by continuing to stay well out of her mother's - and potential stepfather's - business.

good for you though for inviting a bit of benefits bashing from a few clueless, self-satisfied idiots.

HappyGirlNow · 18/04/2014 15:34

It's not benefit bashing it's fraudulent benefit bashing. BIG difference.

Original poster
Spotbakesacake · 18/04/2014 15:36

Well vampyre to be fair that wasn't really down to me was it. Seeing as I've said over and over again that I have no issue with correctly claimed benefits. Other people took the thread in that direction.

borka yes absolutely, I had not thought of that, thank you.

OP posts:
fifi669 · 18/04/2014 15:36

Line runner, I looked into the rules as I wanted to make sure I wasn't overstepping the line with DP before he eventually moved in. As I said earlier it goes by far more than whether you say you live there or not.

LineRunner · 18/04/2014 15:37

You don't know it's fraudulent. You just want it to be so you can gnash your teeth (tip: that would make a good audition for being a UKIP PPC btw.)

fifi669 · 18/04/2014 15:38

I don't think anyone has a problem with people claiming benefits that need it. It's when people choose to live off benefits or milk the system there becomes an issue.

LineRunner · 18/04/2014 15:38

fifi, yes, I can read the rules. You have no idea nor does the OP nor Happy about whether the government rules have been broken.

Original poster
Spotbakesacake · 18/04/2014 15:38

Was that to me linerunner? If so, I can assure I would absolutely prefer it if it was not fraudulent.

OP posts:
fifi669 · 18/04/2014 15:39

OP can always ring HMRC and then we'll know!

LineRunner · 18/04/2014 15:40

OP, no to Happy. But the point remains. You just don't know it's fraudulent. As you say you are not going to report it, I'd just let it lie and focus on having some fun with your dsd.

GarlicAprilShowers · 18/04/2014 15:42

I still don't see this as fraudulent.

Mum's getting housing benefit. Starts relationship, boyfriend moves in. Mum declares change of circumstance, loses housing benefit.
Him: Should we buy one of those new houses?
Her: Would be lovely, but how to save enough while you're also paying my rent?
Him: YY, it's ironic. If we hadn't already set up family in your house, I'd still be at my mum's and could save for a family house ...
Both: ... ... ?

Critics here want to penalise them for being a couple, it seems. I don't see that the man should pay rent on a house he doesn't live in; the fact that he's in a relationship with the residents is neither here nor there.

I'd also be surprised if they're dead comfortable with him living back at his mother's. If they are, then obviously they shouldn't get married or buy the house, because their relationship clearly isn't strong.

What this boils down to is: A grown-up man has decided to move back in with his mother, so as to pay less rent while saving for a house deposit.

He stays a couple of nights a week with his girlfriend.

And the problem is ... ?

monicalewinski · 18/04/2014 15:43

Badidea's post is spot on. It is not 'benefits bashing' to rightfully acknowledge abuses of the benefits system.

If the assumption is correct that the bf is moving out so that the mum is 'single' to allow her to claim, then this is wrong.

I cannot understand why a number of posters on this thread think this is acceptable.

VampyreofTimeandMemory · 18/04/2014 15:44

who the fuck chooses to 'live off' benefits? or do you think it's easy to walk into a job that pays enough that you don't need benefits?

GarlicAprilShowers · 18/04/2014 15:45

Because the mum is now 'single', monica!

Unless you think all working people should pay to sleep with benefit claimants? (Esther would go for that, mind you.)

Original poster
Spotbakesacake · 18/04/2014 15:47

Yes garlic I suppose if you look at it more from the bf perspective it doesn't seem so unreasonable.

OP posts:
GarlicAprilShowers · 18/04/2014 15:47

SHE COULD HAVE STAYED ON HB. He could have rented a house of his own. At this point, he would STILL be moving back in with Mum to save for the new house.

All of you who think they're on a wizard wheeze, why don't you kick your DHs out just to get HB? Confused Hmm