Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
HappyGirlNow · 19/04/2014 11:54

Oh jeez... There's really no hope...

Owllady · 19/04/2014 11:54

if they are buying the house jointly on a government led scheme, surely it's even more ridiculous

I don't even know how she would get approved on a mortgage if all the given information is true Confused

Thank you for all being so nice to me yesterday, I do appreciate it :)

fidelineish · 19/04/2014 11:59

Glad you feel better Owl Smile

Needsmorecake · 19/04/2014 12:01

happygirl - what i wrote is true, as in, its the law.

So, the law has deemed it the right thing to do. Because they are seperate entities. The woman could be left paying for the children, and the man not paying a thing, even if they are living the same house. The man may have cleared the joint account and the woman has not a penny to her name.

This is the law.

Owl- she wouldnt get approved for a mortgage, cleary.He might, but she wont. If its a joint claim, they they would too. However, thats all pie in the sky since it hasnt happened. Whos to say how long its going to take for him to save for this suposed desposit, or that they wont break up in the meantime, or that 1001 other things wont happen. What does matter is, in the eyes of the law, he does not live there. which he doesnt, so neither of them are doing anything wrong.

monicalewinski · 19/04/2014 12:03

Owl Smile

sashh · 19/04/2014 12:14

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?

I was actually criticizing the system not you, but OK I'll bite.

Why shouldn't dsd have the same standard of living she would have if she lived with her father? If your husband is earning good money I actually think that he should contribute towards buying a house for his daughter to live in, with a caveat that a whatever proportion he contributes that proportion of the house belongs to dd.

So why should I as a tax payer pay for your dsd's mother and bf to buy a house? Personally, as I said, a 'run on' for a few months would make things easier for both individuals and a big chunk of society.

Do you rent? I bet you don't.

monicalewinski · 19/04/2014 12:14

Needsmorecake, I asked this further upthread - what's your take on this situation:

Me and husband both forces, so both deploy for periods of up to 6 months.
Next time one of us deploys, we will declare ourselves separated and change our marital cat, separate our finances so that the deployed parent only pays maintenance and the resident parent will claim whatever benefits they are entitled to. We will be living in separate countries, not just accommodation, with no physical contact for all that time.
This will allow us to save up quicker for a deposit for our own house.

Is this legal? Is this moral?

HappyGirlNow · 19/04/2014 12:19

Precisely monica Even if they can 'get away with it' does that make it right? No. Benefit state is for those who need it not for those who don't to allow them to save their own money!

Needsmorecake · 19/04/2014 12:21

no, its not moral, and you couldnt do it anyway. Im an ex forces wife myself, so.....

However, IF you did so chose to decide you were ' single' while your DH was deployed, if you were on the patch ( married housing area for those who wont know what its called) then you know you would have 90 days to vacate your home, rendering yourself and your children homeless. That you cant actually, legally claim HB for an army property during this 90 days. That your husbands status would need to be officially changed to single, in the eyes of the army, and that that has a direct effect on any help/ support you get from the forces. And that if you dicked about and did this everytime he went away, its very likey he would get an utter bollocking and some serious reprocussions.

Needsmorecake · 19/04/2014 12:23

and also, YOU WOULD STILL BE MARRIED AND HE WOULD STILL ' LIVE' THERE.

being depolyed does not change where he ' lives'. He would still' live; with you, so, it would be benefit fraud.

If however, you did seperate, he went to live in the block, or found other accomodation in which to live in, they yes, thats fine. Because hes not living with you.

monicalewinski · 19/04/2014 12:29

As I said in my post, we are both forces, so I would not have to vacate, the house can be mine or his.

It is very easy for him to change his 'address' to the block.

So you agree it is not moral, is it legally within bounds?

Needsmorecake · 19/04/2014 12:41

I missed that you were both forces, sorry.

Again, im sure the families office would have something to say if you just changed his' address' to the block.

And of course all the paperwork you completed saying you had split, would be fraudlent too.

You case is nothing like the one in the OP though.

And while you are jumping up and down about that.. lets not forget how cheap, your rent is compared to market rates.

monicalewinski · 19/04/2014 12:56

It is exactly like the OP. A partner moving out for a period of time to allow the claiming of benefits to supplement saving up some money.

I am not 'jumping up and down' either, just pointing out that however 'legal' something may be, it is not necessarily morally right.

And I fail to see what my rental costs have to do with somebody else playing a system that is there to help those in need!

Inertia · 19/04/2014 12:57

Monica you are married so it's already a different situation, before you even consider any special rules or arrangements for forces personnel.

The couple in question are not married, the boyfriend has no parental responsibilities, and as he doesn't live with the child's mother then she is a lone parent and entitled to the appropriate benefits. There is no moral or legal reason why the boyfriend should pay to support a woman he isn't married to or living with, nor is there a reason why he should pay for a child who isn't related to him and isn't part of his household. If at some point in the future they do all live in the same household, or the child's mother and the boyfriend marry, then they are considered to have joint household income.

The child's mother is working but on a low income, and the child's father also pays what he is obliged to, according to the OP. Despite this, the mother's income is still so low that she is reliant on benefits. The civilised thing for a state to do is to support people in this position and enable them to continue to work - would people genuinely rather we returned to Victorian values and punished the poor for being poor?

And we are all taking the word of a child that this is all true anyway- the boyfriend could have moved out as the relationship is rocky and they are trying to let the child down gently, or he could be caring for a parent going through a spell of ill health but they don't want the child to know about it so have given another reason - but hey, let's not miss an excuse to criticise low income single parent families eh?

monicalewinski · 19/04/2014 13:00

As an aside, we did actually separate for about 6 months or so a couple of years back - he moved into the mess and I stayed in the quarter with the kids.

Even though I could have legally claimed something then, I didn't, because I didn't need to.

Benefits are there to help those genuine need, not an entitlement.

Needsmorecake · 19/04/2014 13:03

Its not exactly like the OP. You are married, your child is both yours. You have been living together since you were married, any seperation would be a total lie.
It would be fraud.

the mother in the OP became a single parent when her husband moved out. She was on benefits for a while. She met someone, and he moved in. when this happened, she stopped claiming benefits.

The man she was living with, has now moved out, she is now on her own again, and is claiming support for that. As she should and is entitled to do so.

The man who has moved out is almost by the by, because hes not the one claiming anything, so, whatever he does doesnt much matter.

The mother isnt going to be saving for anything, she wont have any spare funds to do so.

Should the man save enough money for a house and the mother move in with him, then she will notify and stop claming, as her need will have ceased.

But of course there are lots of things that could happen between ' wanting to save for a house' and it actually coming into fruition. They could split, they could lose jobs. An intention to do something, again, by someone who ISNT CLAIMING ANYTHING FROM THE STATE, doesnt mean its actually going to happen.

Unless they have joint finances, they arent doing anything wrong.

Needsmorecake · 19/04/2014 13:06

monica- if you didnt need to claim, lucky you for being in a postion to do so... i expect those cheap rents might have helped a bit with that.

The mother in this case, clearly needs benefits. The man she is with is not living with her, hes not supporting her, without them she wouldnt have a roof over he head.

So, thats a need, yes?

monicalewinski · 19/04/2014 13:08

Inertia, not once have I criticised low income, single parent families.

Not once have I said that the snippet of info from a child is gospel.

I had earlier said that if the following assumption were true:

family unit (man, woman and child - whether married, or not) were living together as a joined unit, and then for financial reasons decided to physically separate for a period of time with the intent of reforming as a unit once the deposit was saved.

Then although it may be legally fine, it was not morally right.

monicalewinski · 19/04/2014 13:12

Needsmore, you are deliberately(?) misunderstanding my posts.

Have you read all of my posts? If you did you would see what I meant.

You are trying to put me in the mould of benefits basher, which I am not.

Maybe the couple are legally sound, but morally? Not in my opinion.

Needsmorecake · 19/04/2014 13:14

If they are legally sound, then wtf does it matter to you, and who are you, or anyone to sit in moral judgement?

the law states its fine, they are acting with-in the law.

And that should be the end of it.

HappyGirlNow · 19/04/2014 13:15

Some posts on this thread really are comedy gold...

Needsmorecake · 19/04/2014 13:16

Im not trying to put you in a mould of anything, im just countering your argument.
Indeed, you asked me, directly, to answer you.

however, if you now feel like a benefits basher... ...

monicalewinski · 19/04/2014 13:21

I put people who play the system in that way in the same sphere as politicians who played their expenses system (within the law), and tax avoided who play the tax system (within the law).

I will make moral judgement on whomever I feel is not playing fair tbh.

fifi669 · 19/04/2014 13:23

I don't think it is legal. They are down to buy a house together, their finances can't be split if that is the case. It's an artificial arrangement.

Inertia · 19/04/2014 13:28

We don't know that they are 'down' to buy a house together. There's no indication that they even have a mortgage agreement , either together or separately. If they did have joint household finances which rendered the mother ineligible for benefits then her claim would be rejected.

Swipe left for the next trending thread