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).

If I lived alone and my high earning son, for instance, came to live with me then benefits would be stopped so it's exactly the same, isn't it? It goes on who lives in the house not on circumstance.

Rest assured, if it ever comes about, there will be lots of 'chats' about it.

And yes, I'm sure he would pay, he can afford to and he's nice :). And maybe AIBU for feeling like I do, but I think it would be difficult. No, he's not their father and will never be, but as he is expected to pay for them does that mean that he gets a say in things like which shops I buy their clothes in? I think it's very different when it's children you have together as opposed to children that are yours.

And a point he made the other day, he would be expected to pay for them as if they were his, but would have no legal rights, and if we ever broke up he would have no rights regarding contact with them.

If I lived alone and my high earning son, for instance, came to live with me then benefits would be stopped so it's exactly the same, isn't it? It goes on who lives in the house not on circumstance.

No it wouldn't have the same impact. An adult child isn't considered part of your 'household' by the tax and benefits system.

He might be expected to make a small contribution to the rent(if you were a tenant), but he wouldn't be expected to pay your living expenses (and those of minor children).

Beetroot - no they wouldn't - you would be classed as two financially independent adults. I could house share with a friend and their income wouldn't affect my benefits.

Do you private rent or is it an association or council OP?

If its council then he'd be quids in on 50k a year anyway even paying what you would loose.

does that mean that he gets a say in things like which shops I buy their clothes in?

That's the kind of things partners work out between them according to their budget, tastes and priorities, but if that's the kind of thing that's giving you pause, you have a long way to go before you're ready to have him move in.

At the moment I live in a HA house but if we ever did live together it probably wouldn't be here, it's a squeeze just with 3 of us.

It seems that you are having to ask these questions because you have an inkling that your boyfriend doesn't want what comes with you. Always a bad sign. I'd keep it separate if you will feel beholden to him.

Beetroot - honestly it's just a hypothetical situation! He lives 3 hours away and because of work/child commitments won't be able to move for long time yet, we're taking years.

It's quite nice having a boyfriend that lives 3 hours away

hypothetical or not, that would be the reality

OP I understand you fully! This happened with my mum. She decided to declare that her partner lived with us (I was one of 2 children she had previously). She worked full time but housing support etc was slashed, and council tax, etc increased. He was okay initially, but then became stingy with his cash, even when his own son came on the scene and he got a job earning loads more than previously.

Eventually she married, then divorced him a year later (he cheated). The gap between him leaving and her getting financial support again was a very hard time for us, made worse by the fact she still worked full time. I remember being hungry at school because i didn't qualify for free school meals and mum could only afford a few pounds a week. So I absolutely empathise with your scenario. All these people here talking about 'he should pay', 'evaluate your relationship' and 'if he was my partner he'd be expected to xyz if he truly loves me' are living in fantasy land. The thing with humans is we don't always stick to promises made, and the last thing you'd want is for your children to suffer negative consequences.

If I were in that situation I'd not change a thing until we were married and that's only because it's harder to hide the fact we live together. But with not declaring there is always a risk the council will find out. Ideally, you'd not move him in until you were ready to marry or your financial situation improved. But a trial run of how your children and your partner are when living with each other is probably more important.

I wish you all the best! Not every man is like my ex stepdad.

I guess the answer here is to not move a new partner in until you are financially independent yourself. You don't need to live together do you... It's perfectly alright to carry on as you are and move in a few years down the line when you have a job yourself.

The maintenance thing is ridiculous. My exH moved in with another woman as soon as he left, she has two DC and as a result he gets to pay me £30 less a month. I don't understand how or why this is fair. He's paying to raise someone else's children far more than he is his own, I find it very sad. It's more sad because in their house they both work so have twice the income I have and only two children (I have three), plus she gets maintenance from the fathers. And yet it's somehow right that he pays me less money? . A decent man wouldn't cut the maintenance accordingly anyway.

But yeah, just don't live together until you have your own financial independence. It's important to have that anyway in case anything went wrong.

Exactly, as there is a dark side of tax credits and all other line parent benefits: you may shape your life to keep them but you will find yourself in a very bad place once they naturally come to an end.

So I insist, this is just a subsidy to help you becoming independent but not one to rely in the long term.

I really don't understand what beetroot is saying would be the reality. That OP's DP doesn't want to move in? Very odd

Isn't it interesting that for some it seems perfectly acceptable to be financially dependant on the state but not acceptable to be financially dependant on your partner who you live with. #benefits street

I'm still laughing at the fact OP considers herself financially independent when her life is almost entirely funded by the taxpayer. Britain is so screwed up.

He wouldn't be taking on a 'financial burden' if you already provided for yourself, that is the problem.

Also you'd think twice about buying a comic with his 'earned' money but not with your unearned money [ hmm] brilliant.

I think this would be far less of an issue if more single mothers were receiving adequate maintenance from their children's fathers. Unfortunately, a significant proportion get nothing at all, and I don't see why it's acceptable for decent people to end up picking up the tab for another person's lack of responsibility. Nor do I see it as a good thing that women are made necessarily dependent on either the state or the goodwill of a new partner that isn't their children's father. It's a recipe for abuse IMO.

I don't think the welfare state has yet caught up with the social change that sees so many children living in blended families with a parent who is not their biological parent. I don't think the answer is to make single parent benefits still payable to those in new relationships; I think the answer is to get more parents to take responsibility for children who don't live with them - most maintenance contributions do not factor in the cost of childcare for the mother to work, for example, yet the NRP is benefitting from what is effectively free childcare provided by the resident parent.

I totally understand what you're saying OP. In a perfect world people wouldn't move a new partner in unless he/she was the sort who would willingly take on the responsibility of parent - financially, emotionally and practically - but that's not the real world. The real world is one in which housing costs encourage people to share and in which single parents constantly have it rammed down their throats how important it is to have a male role model, a stable family unit, two parents better than one, etc.

In my role, I have come across plenty of women who have defrauded the benefit system by pretending to be single. Unfortunately, in many cases it's a choice of criminality v not being able to afford to feed their children, as the selfish partner won't contribute. Yes, it's an abusive relationship, but these women are so manipulated and vulnerable, telling them to just leave or kick him out is demanding a level of awareness and strength from them that an abused woman simply cannot conjure up. And yet when caught, the man (whose name isn't on the claim) is the one that gets off scott free...

My neighbour has done this - she has claimed to be living alone and has told me on several occasions that her partner isn't supposed to be living with her but if she declares it she wont get all her housing benefit/council tax etc etc paid for. As a result he works and she claims benefits.

They split up last week - she's moved in with someone else, yet apparently she is still claiming housing benefit for the house she moved from and he boasted to me that he now lives in there completely rent free and gets everything paid for - absolutely charming...

I'm not saying it's ok to be reliant on the state long term. The subtle difference is that I don't have to live with 'the taxpayers', so therefore in that sense I am independent in terms of how I choose to spend the money I have, it's not being scrutinised by anyone. I just feel that by someone taking on my kids, which is massive, I would feel kind of beholden to them, and I can see how easy it would be if things were rocky for that to be thrown back in the mother's face. That's what I'm getting at with there being a power imbalance.

Poundingthestreets - I agree with you, except in some circumstances more maintenance is never going to happen. Dd2's dad pays £5 a week out of his benefits. That will never change. The only reason I bother claiming it is so that I know that if I stop getting it, he's probably died and I don't have to watch over my shoulder anymore.

I'm not saying it's ok to be reliant on the state long term.

So this is really a short-term issue.

I get your point though, it's just another benefits trap.

Urbanfox, yes being reliant on money to which you are legally entitled due to your circumstances does feel better than relying on the goodwill of a partner, especially when you have previously suffered at the hands of a controlling and financially abusive ex.

Most of the people in this situation will have come out of a bad relationship, often it has taken years and a lot of courage to build up a fund sufficient to leave and start again with your DCs. Often the maintenance paid by the ex is a pittance and can be unreliable or even nonexistent. Getting some financial help to be free of a bad situation can make the difference between a life of misery and one of happiness and freedom.

Meeting a new partner and then adding in the pressure of financial dependence on him is more likely to cause the new relationship to break down too, so being able to retain some independence (yes you are still independent when receiving tax credits) is very important to women in this situation. We are finding our feet after years of not being allowed access to family money.

Why would anyone knowingly put themselves back in such a vulnerable position when there is a viable and legal alternative? However, when that prevents y from moving on in a new relationship I can see why some people may fudge the lines a bit regarding new partners moving in. I think there should be a probationary period where you can test the waters of living together and that then there should be less emphasis put on household income and more on individual income.

It's unfortunate people do this and yes your right the state would expect the partner to provide I'm not working currently and my boyfriend works full time baby on the way