To wonder if benefit fraud is rife

[sam71xxx]

Was at my mums house on Thursday. Post came and 2 bills for my brother were in it. He has lived with his girlfriend for 3 years since moving out of mums. His girlfriend was a single parent to 3 children, living in a HA house. She does not work. Brother works full time earning £38k a year.

I asked why my brothers post was still coming to mums and she said that he is still officially living at her house so they can afford to save for a house deposit! Girlfriend claims as a single parent.

I was gobsmaked! I told mum it was very wrong that low paid people like me and my husband paid taxes and didnt claim a penny in tax credits while others played the system and that I can only dream of saving for a house deposit on a £30k a year combined income! She then got very upset and asked me not to report them (which I won't)

This is the third person in 6 months I have heard of doing this kind of thing (claiming as single). I am beginning to think it is probably more normal than I thing and I am the mug for not claiming as a single parent (I would be much better off!)

Anyway I digress as these conversations always move on to lone parents in genral as this one has

But op yanbu to be bothered by the situation you know your brother is in.
Yabu to think it is rife because it's not
And most importantly YABU to not report it.

It would be better of there was some sort of half way in the rule making. The single parent would be entitled to be housed and fed by benefits if she was unable to support herself of cours. But in these case the new partner is benefiting from free rent, as she is in a housing association flat the rent is going to be much cheaper than him renting privetly. There should be a system where he can pay towards the rent since he is benefit from not having to pay his own rent whilst the children are able to be supported by the state. At least in the short term. It's one thing saying you will support a new partner but to take partner and childrem all in one go is a lot.

They are however commitng fraud and if they are found out at any time they will be asked to pay back the full amount that's full rent for the times he's been there us all other benefits for her and the children that's hell of a risk.

They are not committing benefit fraud at all.

She is committing benefit fraud he is not. The one who makes the claim and signs the form is the one with the liability and the culpability

I don't know one person that has committed benefit fraud and I know a lot of low paid workers who claim tax credits. I don't know any unemployed people personally.

If you want to get upset about people defrauding the system, look at who has all the money, that might give you a better indication.

that SPs should move new men in. You know, not like it will fuck kids up when everytime their parent meets someone new they have to move in

This one I have seen ESD it astounds me,do they not realise that different people have different relationships and that is ok.

My best friend in the whole world is a SP on benefits she has a arms length relationship that she's quite happy with and has lasted about 10 years she has no desire to live as a family with this man nor does she wish to have a serious commitment with him,they are both perfectly happy dating and bonking once a week when the kids are with dad and just emailing in between. Neither of them wants to see other people but they also don't want to have responsibility for each other but they are very fond of each other,should we have a rule that forces them to be more committed than either of them want? Of course we shouldn't and neither of them are doing anything wrong.

Needs, yes it is confusing and if someone reported me i don't think it would go anywhere apart from being investigated as i am in no way shape or form doing anything other than raising our kids with his help so i can work and he is on JSA anyway so i am not benafitting other than him watching the kids. My LP advisor actively discouraged me from taking this job and discussed some of the rules with me, i think she called it living apart but behaving as a couple which i later googled and found a PDF on for council tax benefit. Even though i had applied for 100s of jobs over an 8mnth period, she said it is not a good idea, maybe you should try and get something else and put the kids in breakfast and afterschool care as it is not ok for him to be in your house especially on an evening. But it is something to be mindful of and from what i have read the 'your partner can stay 3 nights per week' was something you used to hear years ago.

Maybe she was just covering herself as she couldn't be seen to say as a LPA yes use your ex for childcare in your house in case i was doing more than using the ex for childcare or i was using the my ex watches the kids to cover myself whilst living together and claiming as a LP. I don't really class myself as a LP, i just joint parent

fifis

She had absolutely no right to say that to you and it is not based on any benefit rule or legislation I have ever heard of (and I would have done) it is perfectly acceptable for your ex partner to visit your home and provide childcare within your home if that's what you both want.(providing childcare is even given as a valid reason for an ex to be in your home in pretty much most of the claimant compliance staff manuals off the top of my head I can picture the page in the HB & ESA & JSA and TC manuals)

Give a specialist benefits advice service a quick call CAB and TURN2US are both very good and they will confirm what I am saying. There are some limited circumstances where a couple will be treated as a couple if living apart but they do not apply to your situation

I know loads of people talk about the 3 nights rule but to the best of my knowledge it really hasn't ever existed at least not since the mid 80's it's just one of those things that people say.

ESD just don't ever change him an entrance fee if you have a female friend killing on the sofa you will be in very hot water because all of a sudden you would be running a brothel!

Hmmmmm that would be charge and Kipling

Bloody hell my auto correct thinks your house is lively

Ahhhhhhhhhhh kipping kipping kipping

I have been working for almost 18mnth using this set up and it was then after my last visit to the JC i googled and found the pdf on it for council tax which did seem to go somewhat along the lines of what she said. I think she has said it to cover herself tbh, like it's not a good idea idk. I do remember seeing the list re holidays, acting as a couple etc and don't think it applies to me. I will give them a ring and see what they say to cover myself.

I have to argue against it all tbh
I am a single mother on my own with 3 children, we are stuck in a one bed flat. if my kids dad was to move in we would be even worse off can someone explain that?
for whats its worth I go to work 20 hours a week, cant do anymore as its not worth it, I have my partner who has very recently signed on due to losing hes job. if he moves in my rent doubles....explain that, my rent goes up more than he gets....
people can judge away but they have never known what it is like to worry about how you are going to feed ur children(and I am not one for feeding junk before u start) and clothe them when a 5 quid tshirt is out of price range

I think this is what i read needs, page 19

here

then i looked for the manual New Tax Credits Claimant Compliance
Manual and read a link on there but im not sure which one it was now without going through them all

The surevey show's just how complicated the whole benefits system is

and it's from 2009 so its probably changed again by now anway

I think this scenario is relatively common and will always be when benefits quite significantly favour single family set ups. A policy that is meant to provide additional support when families breakup - understandable and to which I sympathise - has had the reverse effect of discouraging two parent families. Dumb A few things to note:

1. Govt benefit fraud figures are just high enough to cause outrage but low enough that the govt doesn't look completely incompetent in relation to fraud. Convenient, no? Im sure fraud figures are higher based on both common sense and anecdotally.

1. Govt needs to put more energy and effort into getting fathers to pay for their children. I don't know why people now assume the state will take the place of a parent in terms of financial responsibility. If they channelled even a small percentage of benefits money into formally and diligently chasing fathers and arresting their income they could reduce the funds they had to hand out. I just feel they've given up completely and lots of men don't care because they know their estranged families will be looked after by the state.

1. Sadly all the curtain twitching done in relation to benefits happens because the income generated by benefits can be significant (a single mom posting just the other day said her part time job brings in £700pm but total income with benefits was just under £1900pm!) and it creates a divide between those who are able to get support and those who can't. Frankly if you asked 100 people if they felt concerned about their finances, close to the edge and would like help from the govt in terms of extra income about 99 would say yes.

This division and envy is what happens when the govt starts to hand out money. Giving money away is a relatively new thing for govt whose focus was normally providing Services or developing policy. It's not the Tories trying to get us infighting; the govts decision to redistribute/handout virtually all the income it gets in in taxes (a colossal amt) and determine who is deserving and who is not is what is truly divisive. Well done govt.

As for your brother as they say 'people have the morals they can afford.'

I just feel they've given up completely and lots of men don't care because they know their estranged families will be looked after by the state

I am not sure it's the state's job to chase parents to financially support their children, but they do it anyway. For most people, the system works because most people earn on a PAYE basis. Those of us who fall foul of the system have exs who are self employed or who work cash in hand or who move their job a lot (agency work).

I don't think my ex doesn't support his children because he knows the state will do it for him. I think he makes a very conscious choice to spite me and do what he can to make my life difficult. It amuses him, if you like.

Unfortunately, the only way to stop this kind of behaviour is for society to actually condemn these parents (it is not just fathers, even if fathers are the majority) and quite literally make them outcasts. There is no end, as far as I can see, of people who are either willing to be with people who don't support their children ('she can afford it', 'she has a good job', 'she earns more than him', 'she gets all the tax credits') or family members and friends who believe 'she won't let him see her so why should he pay' or 'he doesn't earn much so why should he pay' or any other excuse which justifies this piss poor behaviour.

Removal of the CSA/CMS and legislation will do nothing to change the current status quo. There is a desperate need for society to take a hold of this issue but unfortunately it just wants to condemn the single mum.

Not rife at all, although will seem like it depending on your social/friendship group/family obviously.

I know fraudulent claims are relevantly small but how accurate are those figures? Surely they're based on the fact that the govt knows people have claimed falsely. In the case of the OPs brother they don't know, and that money won't be included in the figures.

I personally don't give a shit what people choose to claim, and OP you aren't noble for not claiming what you are entitled to-just claim it! I do think you are complicit in his fraud by turning a blind eye.

william i get your point regarding LP and money for couples as i am a LP on TC and my brother has a mortgage and lives with his DP. They pay full nursery fees and get no help because they are just above the cut off. I don't know the ins and outs but i have now took on childcare for my niece so he saves the £340 to put towards his morthgage. I have childcare but could claim childcare for 3 DC's. I know if i didn't have my EX minding the kids i would struggle to find a job, i went back to my job i had before i had my youngest working nights to avoid using childcare, before going back i had a nightmare time trying to find work, i could have went temping in Newcastle city centre but decided in the nights.

I can see it from both side's, i left my partner because there were other factors involved but i had to leave, it would have been hard to leave without all the safety nets in place but i see the point your making,

fedup and william I totally agree that both parents need to be chased down and made to support their dc. Here in the states there is huge shame in being a deadbeat dad and if in doubt a judge here will sign off on child support being garnished from wages.

The other huge difference with the system here is that a parent who pays alimony deducts the payments from their income and the parent who received the money includes that money in their income. It means the parent paying alimony has an adjusted income that may qualify them for welfare and the parent receiving the alimony pays a lower amount of tax as their income bracket is lower. Overall it's a system that I think is well thought out and the execution is as good as it can be with the legal system taking a very hard line with those who don't pay.

It's more common than many here think (but then some more or less seem to think it doesn't/couldn't go on at all), but then it's not 'rife' as such, and neither is it as common as many here think either. One thing I do know is that two wrongs don't make a right, so the tax thing is nice but not relevant, and also that a small percentage of a very large budget is still a large amount of money and worth protecting as best we can. As usual, there's not just one answer to the issue - it's complicated.

fifis

Ring a specialist advice service rather than HMRC many of the none compliance staff do not have anywhere near as much training so give incorrect advice.

Weirdly it is quite a complicated issue. You appear to have done what I talked about in a earlier post when I talked about the most frequent misunderstandings people make. The staff manual is intended to be used compleatly and not in dribs and drabs. Apart from a few things that are removed from publication to prevent fraud it is quite clear but only when used as intended.

Think about it this way lodgers/house shares/separated couples where one refuses to leave the home would not be classed as a couple (if they were truly separated).

Not all of the cases in the link you gave are considered to be "couples" for benefit reasons. And there is a difference between the assessment for a living together couple and a none living together couple (usually defined by the reasons for living apart).

Does anyone know how the DWP has arrived at their fraud estimate rates?