Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

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:
Owllady · 18/04/2014 17:21

A better way is that people don't screw the system and strive for the things they need through working. This would mean people like my daughter, who is severely disabled and her peers could receive the proper support they need to be safe, secure and well looked after instead of being vilified because other able people have decided they want something for nothing out of a system that was provided as short term relief and to protect the most vulnerable

LineRunner · 18/04/2014 17:22

Absent parents screw the system the most. They owe billions.

Owllady · 18/04/2014 17:26

There are no absent parents involved though ?

LineRunner · 18/04/2014 17:28

Btw I can truly see everyone's pov. The answer is better wages and lower house prices. Until that apparent utopia, we are all screwed.

Owllady · 18/04/2014 17:28

Unless you are suggesting the chap who has moved in with his Mum is an absent parent

I thought child maintenance was longer taken into account when calculating benefits any way?

LineRunner · 18/04/2014 17:29

The system as a whole.

GarlicAprilShowers · 18/04/2014 17:51

I can truly see everyone's pov. The answer is better wages and lower house prices.

Same here.

Owllady · 18/04/2014 17:59

I agree too but tbh my h earns a pretty good wage
Surely they have options through this help to buy scheme too? (I haven't looked into it)

I think I have had a bit of an episode on this thread Blush

Original poster
Spotbakesacake · 18/04/2014 18:03

As it's a new build I expect it probably is via help to buy, but you still need a deposit for that.

OP posts:
Owllady · 18/04/2014 18:07

I don't begrudge anyone claiming benefits when they have no other choice by the way. I just believe it's there for a reason not for people to rely on whilst they save up for house.

That said, I also understand how frustrating and demoralizing it is living in private rental and how insecure it is and if I could find a fail safe way of buying house tomorrow I would. Where we currently live is just so impractical in so many ways for our dd that I do despair very often.

LineRunner · 18/04/2014 18:55

I feel for you, Owllady.

And episodes are what MN is for Smile

sashh · 18/04/2014 19:10

This is why the system is crap.

A single parent who is working part time can claim benefits, but the moment they are in a relationship they have to report this and their benefits are cut because their partner is supposed to support them.

It doesn't happen if you are not claiming benefits, if you are working not claiming benefits and go on a couple of dates no one cares, no one cuts your earnings.

Now I know earnings are not paid by the taxpayer so it is different but how much would it cost to give people a 'run on' in benefits for 6 months?

Probably, the only money being saved is the council tax single person discount.

The actual system fucking annoys me. I live in the centre of a large council estate, people get more cash in their hands if they are 'single', which means that it is better financially for a couple to say they are not a couple and if they are on benefits then there is a flat (usually mum and kids live in a house dad 'lives' ie visits 2 x week) that is unoccupied but unavailable for anyone who needs it.

OP

One solution would be that you and dp pay more for your dsd, short term, so her mother and dsf can provide a more stable enviroment for her in her main home.

The system annoys me. People who do not think their children and step children deserve the best annoy me more.

Has your income dropped since you met dp? No thought not.

Original poster
Spotbakesacake · 18/04/2014 19:15

Sashh millions of people rent. It's not an unstable home. Why should we be paying for dsd mum and her bf to buy a house? What an odd idea.

Are you saying I don't want the best for my children and step daughter? No idea where you're getting that from. Are all the millions of people who rent not doing their best for their children then?

Our income has dropped in that I'm now a SAHM, yes. Doesn't mean that dh pays any less for dsd though.

OP posts:
expatinscotland · 18/04/2014 19:49

The root of the problem is fathers not supporting their children. That is where the system really fails.

Original poster
Spotbakesacake · 18/04/2014 19:55

Err ok, are we now saying it is dh's fault that his ex and her bf cannot afford to put down a deposit on a house without saving for a few years first like most of us do?

OP posts:
GarlicAprilShowers · 18/04/2014 20:01

I was just about to comment on Mumsnet getting weirder, then remembered I've strayed into AIBU again Wink

expatinscotland · 18/04/2014 20:04

No. But you sound very bitter about it all.

monicalewinski · 18/04/2014 20:08

Agree with garlic & line - I can see everyone's point of view and agree with some of what you've said (but not all! Wink).

Owllady, there's nothing I can say to you that will help at all or make a blind bit of difference to you, but I do feel for you and mn is perfect for having a moment I think, like line said Flowers.

I think the fathers are a problem too btw - the ones who try to get away with paying as little as possible, the ones who move onto another family and conveniently forget the first (I'm obviously not applying that to your husband, Spot!), the ones who just don't bother with any notion of responsibility and get a succession of girls pregnant etc etc.

There are a minority playing every system and they taint the responsible majority with their dishonesty (not just benefits). I just try and live as honestly as I can and I do believe that a very high % of people do the same.

Original poster
Spotbakesacake · 18/04/2014 20:10

Really expat? I think I need to work on my communication skills as I don't know how to express any more clearly that I am glad dsd mum has found someone and settled down. I'm glad they're settling down as a couple. I just think it's a dubious way of getting your house deposit together.

OP posts:
WanderingAway · 18/04/2014 23:45

I dont really see the problem with having a new boyfriend & them staying over for a night or two.

What i do have a problem with is a couple pretending that they have spilt & one of them has moved out in order to claim benefits. That is playing the system and should be reported.

RedFocus · 19/04/2014 09:34

Of course it's morally wrong. Unfortunately nothing can be done legally if she is paying all the household bills and he's saving his wages. Shame really and I suspect a lot of people do this too.

Needsmorecake · 19/04/2014 11:11

sashh - i think you are very wrong on the ' a single parent can work part time but once they are in a relationship they have to declare it and their benefits are cut'
Thats utter bull.

A single parent can work part time, they can date and have a relationship. Its only if that person then moves in with them, that they need to declare it.
The person could be staying 4 nights a week, so long as they dont 'live' there.

Im not quite sure where the assumption has come from that single parents even when they are just dating someone, have to declare this and that they man must pay for them, thats crazy.

So, with regards to this thread, her boyfriend has moved out, he is no longer living there, ergo, she is a single, lone parent and allowed the support. Damn sure she wont be saving any deposit on what shes getting.
If hes moved home and can now save as his parents are supporting him ( no different to any other person doing this) with the aim to move out once hes got a deposit...i really cant see what the issue is.

what i suspect is a second wife being a bit judgy and nasty....

HappyGirlNow · 19/04/2014 11:28

I really can't believe anyone would think this was ok.. I mean the pretending to split to get benefits btw not having a boyfriend stay over a couple of times a week..

What on earth is wrong with some people?

MexicanSpringtime · 19/04/2014 11:30

Envy is one of the roots of all evil.

Needsmorecake · 19/04/2014 11:35

but they arent pretending to have split..... hes just moved out of her house. ergo, she is entitled to help seeing as shes now paying all the bills.

You do realise that a married couple could be ' separated' , but not living apart, eg- waiting for a house to sell, or sorting out the financial settlement, and the lone parent could be claiming tax credits?
That is LEGAL

because their finances are not together, because they are not a couple.