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

[Spotbakesacake]

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.

They arent ' down to buy a house'

if they were, they would have joint finaces, which you have to put on any benefit claim forms, and thus her claim would have been rejected.

They are down to buy a house, they have reserved a yet to be completed new build and are due to be moving in in august.

and you know this from the 9 year old?

Different to what you said yesterday....

Do you know the full details of the mortgage? is it just in his name? is it joint? whos footing the deposit?

It's in the OP. I doubt HMRC are aware of it, but if they were then it'd show their intentions as a couple and that the split was artificial and so she wouldn't be untitled to claim. As I said previously, it works by more than just where you sleep the majority of the time.

Think a partner working away during the week and renting a flat there and then coming home at weekends. They are a couple, they plan to be a couple but physically are apart most of the week. Still classed as a couple by HMRC.

needsmorecake I put that quite clearly in my first post. That is not from dsd, we already knew that from her mum.

I don't know any of the info regarding how they are buying it, that would definitely be guess work on my part.

Needsmorecake doesn't seem to bother reading posts properly though fifi & spot - she just makes up what she thinks she read and challenges the fantasy post that she created.

but this is all info from a 9 year old. You dont actually know anything.

So for all anybody knows it could be that the boyfriend has reserved a house and arranged a mortgage.

I would be surprised if HMRC have rules to prevent unmarried , non-co-habiting, working taxpayers who claim no benefits and have no dependents from buying a house.

needsmorecake I have never said anything to the contrary. This is based on what dsd said, I've made that clear from the start.

inertia I don't think that changes anything even if that is the case! But I did acknowledge garlics post earlier and said that if you look at it purely from his pov it did seem a lot more reasonable.

I posted earlier that counting as a couple goes by more than just where you put your x box. Joint financial commitments, future plans (I'd say having a house reserved ticks those boxes), how you are perceived publicly (would your friends, co workers etc say you're a couple) are all factors. So I actually think if someone did report them it's be found they made a fraudulent claim and would indeed be illegal

Not correct, go re look into the rules and look at the heading on the page you are looking at it will say words to the effect of

deciding if a cohabiting person is living together as a couple

They have to be cohabiting for those questions to be relevant.

There are several different types of perfectly legal claims

A parent living alone but having a boyfriend who is maintaining another property but occasionally staying over is legal.

A separated couple residing under the same roof (providing they are separated) with single person claims is legal

Someone's whose residency arrangements are solely related to employment in most cases will not be legal

gordylovesheep I was emphatically not saying that those on benefit should get boyfriends to pay their rent! I was only saying that Derek should not be so very proud of her situation (see her first post) - being on benefits with a rich bf staying over. She is clearly not breaking any rules but her sense of entitlement and pride in it is bizarre. I would be ashamed and be doing everything I could to change the situation instead of going online and encouraging other people to milk the system on the basis that they can make their situations like hers.

needsasock nobody claims that the couple involved in the OP are fraudulent; just immoral and abusing the system (legally) when it is there to help those in dire need rather than to help people save for a house more quickly. Like I said before, there is a direct analogy with tax avoidance - contorting your personal circumstances to make money out of the the taxpayer (either by increasing your claims, or by reducing your contribution). Just the same. Not illegal, but immoral and OP INBU to be cross when she sees it.

ladyEmma

A few posters have used the word fraudulent and talked about it being cheating, it is not.

And where the hell do you get the impression from that it is ok to imply another poster should feel ashamed due to her income status or sexual activity?

Indicators of being classed as living together:

www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/tctmanual/TCTM09341.htm
You'll see that actually physically being there is just one aspect.

Fifi.

Read them all in conjunction with each other apart from a few circumstances (wont list all but employment related residence is one)you cannot be classed as ltahaw unless you are living together.

And it quite clearly explains that in the link you posted.

Two people living together may not be a couple two people living independently and not in the same household will not be.

TCTM09360 absences from the home

States that the couple's future intent, and maintenance of contact are relevant to whether the absence from the home is temporary or not.

Being as how they lived as a family unit, and have the intent to return to a family unit when in their new home, then the absence could be classed as temporary.

By 'splitting up' for a few months, they are playing the system.

Thank you monica!

LadyEmma your utterly offensive comments about Derek put you in a far less positive light than her. There's no way she should even have to justify herself, not least to someone who's posted as you have.

I was only saying that Derek should not be so very proud of her situation (see her first post) - being on benefits with a rich bf staying over. She is clearly not breaking any rules but her sense of entitlement and pride in it is bizarre. I would be ashamed and be doing everything I could to change the situation instead of going online and encouraging other people to milk the system on the basis that they can make their situations like hers.

Does it offend you that people who are in paid employment might want to have sex with people on benefits? Is it the case that people on benefits aren't allowed - either legally or morally - to have relationships (or just casual sex) with people who work? Should people who work avoid those who don't work for fear of being looked down upon? Or is it a single mum thing for you...you know, single mums need to keep a whiter than white profile to avoid being mistaken for common prostitutes?

Do you understand that people who aren't working and who are on benefits today might have been working yesterday or indeed, might be working tomorrow?

Is your suggestion that Derek should 'charge' her boyfriend to stay over because he works and she doesn't? Wouldn't that make her a prostitute? Do you think non-working people who have sex are prostitutes? Do you charge your friends and family to stay over at your house or better said, would you if you weren't working? (I wonder if you do work, but there you go...)

Derek....I'm speechless, hun. Just ignore this shit. Life's short enough.

it is very very odd, and offensive how frankly, thick some people can be.

Derek, bollocks to the idiots.

:)

A couple who have decided to not share the same household for what ever reason (other than limited circumstances) are no longer living together.

The future intentions and temporary thing is intended to be used to make a distinction between a bad relationship that is mostly cohabiting (so once a week they have a row and someone storms off to mothers)and a relationship where the couple have actively decided to live apart.

So a couple who live together as a couple even if the relationship is unsecure are a LT couple

A couple who live apart due to prison work hospitalisation but would live together if not for the enforced separation are a LT couple

A couple who have actively chosen to live apart and taken the nessacery steps with accommodation seeking and financial division and are not Likely to be chopping and changing and it's likely to not be a very short term thing would be highly unlikely to be found to be.(by unlikely I mean if they were we would have had to have made very very sure they were using financial commitment and responsability towards the household for evidence as the likelyhood of it going to tribunal and court would be incredibly high long term future intentions and contact alone being the indicators would not be enough and the tribunal would find against us)

People are allowed to change the status and nature and level of commitment in their relationships without government interference.