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:
fidelineish · 18/04/2014 13:58

OP YOU don't know the intricacies of this poor woman's financial affairs. It doesn't appear to be stopping you from coming online for a good old bitch about them. The surface appearance can of course be misleading.

VampyreofTimeandMemory · 18/04/2014 13:58

molly that's because many people who have never had a need to claim benefits live in a little bubble of ignorance and stupidity.

fidelineish · 18/04/2014 13:59

Okay I'll stick with de facto wives and first and second relationships then unless you have a better system.

HappyGirlNow · 18/04/2014 13:59

molly unsure what's stupid about that? How do you think the benefits system is funded? I work, I pay tax, it's taking money out my (and other tax payers) pockets to fund cheats. I have no problem contributing for people who need it. I may need it again in the future.

Cut benefit fraud and either there would be less tax to pay or more money for those who actually need it.

WooWooo · 18/04/2014 13:59

I am with you OP. whilst they are doing nothing legally wrong it does mean that the tax payer is paying her more so she can up her savings. I am desperately trying to save currently but I am not asking anyone else to chip in.

fedupbutfine · 18/04/2014 13:59

oh yes, derek I love the 'oh, I didn't mean you' line....yeah, it's just all those other single mums that are the problem. Bollox to the lot of 'em!

Ruushii · 18/04/2014 14:00

Less tax to pay Grin more money for those who need it Grin It just gets funnier.

Inertia · 18/04/2014 14:00

Well then I can't understand what grounds you have to get annoyed then Spot . Lone working parent recieves benefits to support her child - seems entirely reasonable. Taxpaying working man with no responsibilities saves money for house deposit , and thereby offers housing security to another man's child - seems like he is actually helping your husband out here.

GarlicAprilShowers · 18/04/2014 14:01

The benefits system operates to a weird & convoluted set of laws, which are constantly being changed and are based on the principle that all claimants are thieves.

I depend on benefits for survival. I get a lot less than I 'should', according to official self-checks, but the laws are what they are and this is what I get. I have to suck it up.

It is completely unreasonable to say that I must be satisfied with what I'm given, because that's the system, but another person must not claim what the system offers. The couple in OP's post aren't cheating: he has moved out. Presumably he's been subsidising his girlfriend's life until now, but have decided she should claim her state entitlement for a while in order to enable him to save.

Whether you think the system's right or wrong, your gripe is with the system not the claimant.

GarlicAprilShowers · 18/04/2014 14:02

xpost, inertia, you said it better.

Thomyorke · 18/04/2014 14:03

You do not know if this is the boyfriends decision and is refusing to contribute to her rent and leaving her no option, he has no reasons to assist morally or legally, you do not know if the intended new property will be in joint names or just his. What you do know is he has left the home to move in with his parents everything else is conjecture.

VampyreofTimeandMemory · 18/04/2014 14:05

do some idiots think they'd be paying less tax if people stopped cheating the system? because surely that must be every second claimant at least Hmm... so tax doesn't contribute to anything other than benefits...?

Petitgrain · 18/04/2014 14:05

If your dsd's mother doesn't have her own home and has had to live on benefits for years, I think it's a pretty fair assumption that your DH hasn't provided as well for his daughter as he might. You and he certainly seem to enjoy a better standard of living than them. Before she met the boyfriend who earns almost as much as your DH, I mean.

stardusty5 · 18/04/2014 14:05

I am really surprised at this thread.

Surely the implication is that the couple will continue to earn and pay bills as a couple, but lie so that the mum can claim single person benefits?

If he doesnt currently pay towards the house or child then its obviously understandable- tho an unusual/ unlikely situation to have a live in partner who doesnt contribute in any way towards rent and bills.

I don't know where all this stuff about having non resident partners pay towards your house started- i can't see where that was suggested.

As someone currently saving really hard to buy a house, it would annoy me if i thought that people were cheating the system to top up their deposit.

It takes money away from the people who need it i.e single parents without live in partners!

HappyGirlNow · 18/04/2014 14:07

What doesn't make sense for you Ruushii ? Maybe I can help?

If less money goes in fraudulent claims then there is more left in the pot for those who actually should be receiving it OR less tax for benefits would be required.

Perfectly simple. Understand?

I don't think all claimants are thieves Garlic not at all. I've needed benefits in the past and may again. I just take huge issue with people who do cheat or play the system.

EatShitDerek · 18/04/2014 14:10

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MollyHooper · 18/04/2014 14:10

Oh I am fully aware of how the system works Happy, I'm just not sure you are.

You pay tax yes, but you and your family also take from that big pot of tax money too. I obviously have no idea how much but I can bet that there is not much of your precious money going to 'fund benefits' after you have taken your share.

Oh and don't worry about funding cheats, the percentage of benefit fraud is surprisingly low.

EatShitDerek · 18/04/2014 14:12

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Ruushii · 18/04/2014 14:13

Maybe I can help you, happy girl?

They are trying to cut the amount spent on welfare. There is not magic pot where there will be more money left for people who need it. And I notice you've changed from "less tax to pay" in general to "less tax for benefits". So you lose my interest there when you can't be consistent and have to backtrack when trying to make sarcastic points.

Plus the amount spent on fraud is minute compared to what people think it is. A teeny weeny part of the already tiny amount you contribute to welfare.

Perfectly simple. Understand?

VampyreofTimeandMemory · 18/04/2014 14:19

*Plus the amount spent on fraud is minute compared to what ignorant 'benefits street' viewers and daily mail readers think it is.

fifi669 · 18/04/2014 14:19

I think it's one thing to hold off living together to maintain some financial independence of sorts and another to chop and change in order to maximise benefits.

I think the criteria for counting as a couple include lots of things such as if you're perceived as a couple by those that know you, future plans, financial ties etc.

I think it's ridiculous to say OPs DP obviously hasn't provided well enough for his DC if ex is on benefits. He could pay a grand a week and she'd still be entitled to claim!

MollyHooper · 18/04/2014 14:19

I blame Jeremy Kyle. I really do. :o

With all his "Me and every other tax payer are paying for your kids/booze/drugs" in reference to benefits.

It has made people feel so indignant for all the wrong reasons.

gordyslovesheep · 18/04/2014 14:21

yes because it's not like those tax payers take anything OUT of the system at all ...

stardusty5 · 18/04/2014 14:22

I did see that message, derek, you're right, but it looked to me like that poster hadnt properly read your post as it was clear to me that your partner doesnt live with you.

I do think people have jumped on that however, and seem to be making out that all of us who agree with the OP believe that partners should immediately pay to be in eachother's lives.

gordyslovesheep · 18/04/2014 14:24

no you are just reading it that way