To think the current benefits system sets single parents up to commit fraud?

[Littlefluffyclouds81]

I am a single parent, I'm currently a student and earn a small amount from self employment, so receive some housing benefit, CTC, WTC and CB.

Let's say, hypothetically, my bf moved in with me (there is no real danger of that happening for a very long time, but let's pretend). He earns £50k a year. If he moved in, as far as the system would see it, my children are his children, and therefore he would be jointly financially responsible for them. I would instantly lose all of my benefits, leaving me around £1100 a month worse off. This would leave me in a position of being no longer financially independent, and feeling like I had to go to him, cap in hand, to ask for money. Money, which often would be spent buying things for my kids.

My bf is a very nice chap and all that, but I doubt he'd cough up a grand a month to provide for me and my children. I doubt there's many blokes that would. His dd would also lose out, as through suddenly having gained two extra children, the maintenance she is entitled to would go right down.

Bearing all this in mind, I can see why many single parents are tempted to move their partner in 'on the sly'. Of course this is very risky, but only for the single parent (usually the female). As the benefits claimant it is the single parent who will be prosecuted, the partner they'd moved in would have no repercussions, even though no doubt they'd done quite well in terms of their own living costs, probably chipping in a token amount towards food and bills.

I think this makes it very hard for single parents to ever have a serous relationship, unless they happened to be a high earner themselves, so benefits weren't an issue. Or I suppose if both adults were on benefits, as they wouldn't lose out there. I'm not sure what the answer is, other than a citizens wage (which will never happen).

The benefits system really does need to be looked at though..some parts of it are pretty ridiculous and I agree that a 12 month run on for situations such as in the OP would be a good idea. It also needs to be easier to restart claims IF something did go wrong somewhere down the line. It takes weeks and weeks at the moment and since the likes of crisis loans have been done away with a sudden breakup in a home where the partner was the main earner and has buggered off...would be a devastating situation financially.

Middle, most single parents I know, and aI n ow a lot of them, are very responsible when it comes to re partnering and introducing children.

I have noticed however that many married people immediately assumes that if you are a single parent and date, you are inevitably getting a cocklodger, even if the "cocklodger" is paying his fair share, bringing the groceries and cooking your dinner.

See this thread, Op had not mentioned about the position of his boyfriend and people are already assuming he wants to live with her without contributing a penny, even when OP has mentioned that his BF has a substantial salary.

Her boyfriend

It also needs to be easier to restart claims IF something did go wrong somewhere down the line. It takes weeks and weeks at the moment and since the likes of crisis loans have been done away with a sudden breakup in a home where the partner was the main earner and has buggered off...would be a devastating situation financially.

Yes, that's what makes it a massive risk.

We all know of some single parent that has partner after partner that roll through the kids lives. I don't agree with this fully as a reason but maybe that's part of the thinking.

I suspect that those are the small minority that don't declare partners MCP.

You never really know someone until you live with them. You can be as cautious and gradual as you like, but living together is the acid test.

If your boyfriend moves in with you, you're no longer a single parent. So, no, the benefits system isn't set up for single parents to commit fraud - it's set up for couples to commit fraud.

Exactly, just5.

Cruik - yes you're right, but only the woman carries the can for that.

Im with Gretchen. I wouldn't want to be with a man let alone have him move in if this was his attitude.

If your boyfriend moves in with you, you're no longer a single parent. So, no, the benefits system isn't set up for single parents to commit fraud - it's set up for couples to commit fraud

No, because in those scenarios, the (previously) single parent is making or continuing the benefits or TCs claims, signing the declarations and renewals. (S)he is the one failing to notify a change of circumstances and the one liable to arrest and imprisonment. Never the new partner. It doesn't happen.

MeMySonAndl I know majority are responsible, I was not saying it was a dominant lifestyle. I think it's a case of the minority being played to.

And Just I think many of that minority bringing partners through their kids lives aren't moving them in but introducing them very early on but maybe would do so if it were easier. I think because someone is romantically led doesn't nessarily mean they will commit fraud. However there will be some that do just as there will be some in a long term position that do.

"Yes they're both handouts but it just feels different. "

That's the thing, they feel different, but they aren't different really.

"You never really know someone until you live with them"

...And I suppose that once you have been through a divorce/separation, you also get more wary and are less prepared to put up with certain stuff people in first relationships put up with.

Im with Gretchen. I wouldn't want to be with a man let alone have him move in if this was his attitude

But this is what she thinks, not him

Im with Gretchen. I wouldn't want to be with a man let alone have him move in if this was his attitude.

The thing is I think a lot of men (especially childless men) say "yes of course I'll support you all", but the theory is different to the practise.

Suddenly having to share earnings you are used to having to yourself; Learning how much things cost and how much a family takes to run; Building the bonds that mean you are as invested in a child's well-being as the biological parent is; It all takes time (for some anyway).

"By 'run-on' I mean a 12 month continuation of all benefits and TCs that were payable the day before the partner moved in"

So you could be cohabiting with a millionaire and still claiming benefits? I don't think that's a solution.

...And I suppose that once you have been through a divorce/separation, you also get more wary and are less prepared to put up with certain stuff people in first relationships put up with

SO true.

If she "thinks" this then she needs to have a chat with the boyfriend before making any moving in plans.

Someone also said that his rent and bills would just be the same cost as him living with you to cover benefits or something?

But wouldn't he now have rent, bills, her, her kids too. Thus less money for his DC and everyone on a budget? It is a lot to ask from someone. Granted when you are settling down that's a choice in becoming a family but when most couples move in together (not buy, just move in) they tend to very much have their financial indepence but no kids to think about so it may be an easier decision to do so anyway

So you could be cohabiting with a millionaire and still claiming benefits? I don't think that's a solution.

If it makes nervous (about finances) women willing to try cohabitation and those relationships then stick, it will save the exchequer £££££££s.

broken no I don't think the taxpayer should stump up the cost, and I suppose I'm potentially fortunate that my bf is a high earner so if we ever lived together it maybe wouldn't be such a huge problem, but it would make things very tricky if he was in a minimum wage job. Or if I still had preschoolers, and lost my childcare assistance. I'm not really talking about just me here, it's single parents in general.

But surely if a single parent moved in a partner on a minimum wage job, then they would be entitled to the same benefits/tax credits that any dual parent households would get in similar circumstances.

I get that one partner in this scenario isn't a biological parent, but if they wish to live together as a family, then I think they have to accept the responsibilities that that entails. Otherwise, they should just stay as boyfriend/girlfriend and live separately.

I don't see why the household should receive extra financial support just because one half of a couple was previously a single parent.

It strikes me that the real issue that needs to be tackled is the number of men who don't pay maintenance for their children. If this could be addressed, the burden on new partners would be greatly reduced.

Well I'm sure she wasn't moving her family in without a bit of a chat

This re CB from "the other side". But yes one family on £90k can have it and another on £60 gets none.
www.netmums.com/election-2015/10-questions-for-number-10/is-child-benefit-fair

How do you know that Middle? Plus the OP was talking about him moving in not the other way round so she is the one getting housing benefits etc. Again I say, if this man doesn't want to "stump" up then he should stay out. Sounds like his mean to me. He want's all the benefits etc. of living with someone who has kids but doesn't want to take it on. It's a package.

Because why would she have these concerns and not say anything?

And again, the man in this situation has not said he wouldn't be happy to. It's all just about how OP would feel if that were the situation. Dependant.

Also I know it's the other way around but I didn't see how else she could impose a living situation without a conversation

Vickyyyy Me and partner have never had issues with stuff like this and I'm starting to wonder if this makes us strange in some way as it appears most others do things much differently to us. This was before we even had kids too...as soon as we were 'serious' there was no more mine and his :S

I'm in the same situation as OP. When I was married to the dad of my DCs, like you and your DH we had joint finances, I would never have accepted the lack of equality that would have come from me being a SAHM and him earning £60k if we hadn't shared finances.

However, second time around this is a different situation - now with my DP the DCs are not 'ours' they are very much his and mine. He is paying maintenance to his ex for the upkeep of his DCs. If he were to move in with me, CMS rules state that he can reduce the payments to his ex because he now has extra DCs to support (not fair on his DCs or their mum, and he would never do this, but it sucks that it's even an issue).

He supports his DCs along with their mum and I support mine with help from my ex. If DP moved in with me I would be financially worse off and he would have to make up the shortfall. I'm not talking about him paying towards the rent (his mortgage is currently only about £250, along with bills etc it still wouldn't come anywhere near the £1k I would lose in tax credits.)

If my DCs want to go to uni or would like help with a deposit for a house is it DP's responsibility to provide for that, as their step parent who is now apparently financially responsible for them? Or do my DCs get help from both their own dad and step dad, while DP's DCs go without because he is no longer required to pay the full amount for them?

It is a very real consideration in my relationship OP. Apart from the practical issues of sharing a home with a man and his DCs, the financial implications mean that it probably won't happen as I can't afford to be reliant on someone again. I've been beholden to a man for too long and it's not a nice place to be. Yes I may be beholden to the state at the moment, but the system allows for that so that I can work and be the only parent 6 days a week.