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).

Whoops forgot to add I rely on him financially fully

I think immediate loss of low income benefits (from a partner moving in or a new job) and also child benefit is likely to prevent new families forming and encourage state dependence. There should be an introduction period of e.g. one year before benefits are lost and/or it should be easier for benefits to be reinstated as it was in the early 2000s so people don't have to rely on food banks.

Theres always the other option of living separately and still enjoying your relationship and time together without living together. You just need to work out the best thing both financially and emotionally. I dont think it makes people commit fraud, but it does make a lot of relationships live apart ones, even if theyd really love to live together in an ideal world.

Gosh, I really think there should be some minimum child maintenance that if someone can't fulfill is given in benefits, maybe in place of another. £5 a week is ridiculous. Is he not able to get out the benefit system as you are trying to do re studying for employment?

There should be an introduction period of e.g. one year before benefits are lost

So partners can move in for 11.5 months, saving their rent, then move out again?

Middle - no, he's completely barking mad and on disability benefits. He has a personality disorder which is incurable. No one would give him a job, even if he wanted to work, which I can't imagine he does as he gets the highest rate of disability benefits (or at least he did when I was last in contact with him 4 years ago).

I agree with PPs that it does make it very difficult for new families to form. Which is not good as it costs the taxpayer money and also doesn't help the housing situation, as a couple living apart are using two houses rather than one.

So if I have understood correctly...

As a single parent you meet someone who earns a good wage they move in/or you move in with them and people on here think that the single parent should be able to continue to claim benefits? For at least a year to see if there relationship will work?

Because it's unfair on the person who is "new" to the family to contribute? To a life they have decided to join? Despite the fact they then save £X amount from having one home rather than two between the couple?

But it's perfectly acceptable for the tax payer to support the single parent and by default a person who moves in with them and then earns a good living?

And this stops people from moving in together?

In this case the one moving in has a DC where that maintenance would be affected to cover the costs of the new family (still living modestly)

Your rising inflection had got a bit out of control there kittens

This would leave me in a position of being no longer financially independent

I don't view being on benefits as being financially independent!! Not in the least!

Feeling like I had to go to him, cap in hand, to ask for money

Well isn't that how a family works? You pool your money and each contribute?

I think this makes it very hard for single parents to ever have a serious relationship

As for this, isn't that the whole point, that you consider it seriously before moving in with a new partner and become a "blended family"?

There questions because I don't actually see why or understand why this would stop people moving in together.

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.

this

YANBU. I really hate that the system is set up so they can treat you 'as if you are married' when you've not actually made that level of commitment.

Years ago I was a single person on benefits, I obviously only got the 'single room in a shared house' rate of housing benefit so lived with a group of friends, sharing bills and chipping in for basic groceries to share so the fridge didn't have 5 separate bottles of milk in it etc.

After years of friendship with one of the guys in the house (young professional in his first job so earning decent money), we finally realised we both liked each other 'that way' and slept together.

Afterwards I realised what a tricky situation I might be getting into with regards to my benefits, so asked the benefits office for advice on what exactly 'living together as man and wife' meant and whether we would be considered as doing so (which would have meant the immediate loss of all my benefits and led to me being unable to pay rent/homeless).

I was told that sex (or lack of it) is specifically not a criteria and would not effect my status but if I declared him as someone I was having a relationship with, I would be assessed and taking into account things like the shared groceries we would probably be classed as living together as man and wife.

Neither of us could immediately move out (we had just signed another 12 month contract), so my options were to not pursue the relationship, pursue it and not declare it (fraud), or to pursue it and ask him to immediately pay all my costs from the start of the relationship. Utterly absurd.

Exactly Parrots!

DP has two children who he looks after 100% (unless DC mother decideds in her words help him out usually once a year) I have no DC of my own just a cat.

We never had a conversation that went along the lines of "I will sell my house and move in with you because it's smaller but I will only contribute X amount towards electricity because me and the Cat don't use so much and there are three of you"

We just all get on with it, you pool resources it's called becoming a family and commiting to your partner and their life.

I think that the key point in this is that by moving in with a partner, you are no longer a single parent. If you live with a significant other and still feel like a single parent they why the fuck are you living together??

But Kittens? If your income was taken away because you moved in and you had DC but the extra cost of covering you and DC meant a reduced amount going to his DC then you may not do it because you don't think it's fair on his DC to lose out

To the people commenting on the financial independence...

How is it not embarrassingly obvious, that the OP means financially independent from her boyfriend?

To spell it out....

She means so that she can rely on her own money, given to her by the state, rather than rely solely on his money, given to her by him.

Taking the average cost of raising a child to 21, and the years my children have left until they are that age, means that there is over £250,000 left to pay as it stands. That's quite a lot to ask of someone, bearing in mind they are not his children, and he has his own child to support.

I can see what you are saying but I never felt like committing fraud!

My OH was paying his ex £350 a month he stayed with me every weekend but worked away in the week. EOW we had his kids here.

My ex is self employed and pays me the bare minimum of maintenance. OH
Ex went to CSA he was ordered to pay £570 a month and they deemed is living together and I lost £400 a month is tax credits.

I reported my ex for tax evasion and nothing happened and got less than the £150 a month he was giving me for 3 kids

Thank you worra . That's exactly what I mean. I have single parent friends who are nurses and teachers and who still rely on tax credits to live. Being truly financially independent is not easy.

Little - Dating a women who has got children, one of the things that he should have considered is whether he would like to be financially responsible for them one day. Surely, living with a partner and their children, you would be a family? Surely he would treat them like his own children? Surely you would want him to treat them like his own children? So why, if you moved in together, would he not have to contribute to the household and share expensenses?

Re the definition of 'financial independence', entitlements to tax credits are enforceable entitlements (due to criminally low wages at the bottom of the pay scale, but that's another story). It's hard to enforce financial contribution from a partner. So, practically speaking, for women in financially tight situations, tax credits are less of a gamble.

A lot of poverty happens within a home with one well-paid member.

I'm confused now, is this meant to be a partner or a lodger?! People with kids come with kids, not as single people. It's part of the package and you can't separate that. Someone is either sharing a life with you and everything that comes with it or they're not. I don't see the dilemma.

middle class I am the "partner" in this case, who moved in with a man who had two children 100% of the time. littlefluffy you take on that responsibility when you move in, because this is what partners do you support each other.

If hyperthetically speaking I had a child somewhere that I didn't see that I paid maintence for they wouldnt loose out, why would they? By moving in with my DP I saved about half of my living costs if not more. Certainly more than what is paid in benefits I am guessing as I understand it is not very much at all. So I would more than likely be better off (I was much better off) which would mean more maintenance for my hypothetical other child. The only way I can see this hypothetical child missing out is if I was on benefits and then I couldn't claim benefits so my child would loose the £5 a week.

If your commited enough to let someone move into your home with your children then you should be able to work together as a team. The "new" partner saves on their living costs, I saved a huge amount of money by moving in with DP.

If your moving in with someone children or no children you should be commited enough to support where needed, things happen in life supporting each other through thick and think is what partners do. If your not ready for that don't officially live together.