WTC relationship policy

[Winosaurus]

This week I received a letter regarding my Working/Child Tax credits titled “Should you be making a joint claim?”
It’s states that the obvious reasons you should be i.e, living with someone, married / civil partnership etc.
But the worrying addition to this is they state, and I directly quote
“Friends and/or family see you as a couple (or see the other person as your partner)”

WTAF? How on earth can that firstly be enforceable, or secondly provable?

For context I have been a single parent for 8 years, I privately rent my own property in which only myself and my children live. I am completely financially independent and my children and household is run by only me.
However, I have been exclusively dating someone for 2.5 years who has his own home, utility bills, and 2 children whom he supports. We have no shared finances and see each other 2 - 4 nights a week between our two homes. I do not want to live with him any time in the near future but I am also not interested in dating anyone else.

How can it be the HMRC could consider that we are in any way financially tied because I choose to socialise and only have sex with him? If I was sleeping around and having numerous partners and Eden having a different one staying over every night of the week then it would be no issue?

So apparently now if you choose to date whilst being a single parent that automatically makes you financially responsible for each other and each other’s children even if you live separately and only see each other for company?

AIBU to think this is an incredibly dangerous precedent to set?

It's just a standard letter they sent out to anyone making a single claim. Nothing to worry about. Lots of threads about it already ☺️

It’s not the letter that’s concerning me because I am doing nothing wrong... it’s the notion that if you date exclusively then you have no right to be financially independent.
That is so dangerous and worrying!

I'd imagine that statement is designed to catch those that claim to be single because they want the states money but are actually in a long term relationship and it's better financially to claim they are not.

Well I suppose technically that would be me then Yellow
One of the reasons I have no desire to live with my DP at the moment is because I am reliant on WTC to help pay my DS’s nursery fees as they are extionate in our area and very few nurseries are offering the 30 hours scheme, many opting only to offer 15 hours maximum.
If we lived together I would no longer be eligible to claim and it would mean he would effectively be paying for my DS to go to nursery as my wage would barely cover it. I think that would be doing his own children a disservice

Exactly @Savemefromthe it’s effectively saying you can’t date anyone exclusively! It’s insane but I can’t see how it could be enforceable. Even if I was dating a millionaire I may not want it to be that serious and why should it be assumed that dating means that huge level of commitment, especially when there are children involved. I wonder if they’re pushing for people to make changes to their circumstances so they can put them onto universal credit which usually results in less money for the recipients

the legislation is actually very unclear but a couple would generally be 'living together' - that's not staying at each others homes but sharing a house full time - try not to worry

Firstly it’s not sleeping at each other’s houses I said we see each other 2-4 nights a week. Secondly I could stay at his home 5 nights a week, or him at mine and it cannot legally affect my WTC or any benefits because we have separate finances, utility bills and properties which I can prove we pay for. The DWP can say their rules are different but they are not legally enforceable, and that is the advice taken from the CAB website.
They actually look at what they call LTAHW (living together as husband as wife) which means one or other of the people in the relationship must not be paying bills, rent/mortgage someone else for it to count as cohabitation.
Which is why I think the WTC/CT letter is so dangerous! Many people will believe they are in the wrong for dating if they claim these benefits when. It implies single parents are not allowed relationships and it’s even more dangerous to use the phrase I stated in my OP because the views others have of your relationship are subjective and not under your control.
It seems very very wrong

*somewhere else

I have no desire to live with DP at the moment is because I am reliant on WTC to help pay my DS’s nursery fees

One could argue that's exactly why they send those letters out as you are deliberately organising your life so you continue to get WTC...

No I’m not ready to live with my partner ItsAllGoingToBeFine I said that’s one reason. There are 4 children involved in our relationship and I’m not ready to blend it all together yet and don’t think it’s appropriate to force people into a situation where they are financially dependent on each other when they are committed enough to want to do that yet.
Let’s be honest as well, most WTC single claimants are women and I think the letter could potentially leave some women vulnerable to financial abuse if they are forced to be dependent on partners that they are not ready to be fully committed to.

Also my situation hasn’t changed other than the fact I have regular sex with one man

... as opposed to be celibate I mean

You can live your life how you like. The question is, does the State have a greater duty to support you financially than someone you are in a relationship with? No-one would expect a new partner/date to immediately start paying for someone else's children, but that's not the situation you are in. Many people would argue that when you are in a settled relationship your partner has a greater duty to you than the taxpayer.

It’s very casual, people can argue what they want and as I’ve said upthread - perspective is subjective. I think it’s dangerous to assume that if you’re in a sexually exclusive relationship that you want to or even are able to be financially joined.

Perhaps if CM included half of all childcare costs there would be less women in my position.

Just so you're aware, if you're sleeping at each other's houses for 3-4 times a week it can be considered cohabitation for WTC

No it can’t, for a LTAHAW finding if made correctly his property would have to be a contrived tenancy or work connected.and the intention to reside together would have to be there

And it’s not true that there has to be a financial contribution. HMRC doesn’t distinguish between good and bad relationships if actually cohabiting. So living with someone whose a freeloader is not allowed on a single claim.

The imperative bits are actual residence and intention (intention is predominantly used with married people). Maintaining your own property and managing your life from that property effectively means you cannot be considered to be resident elsewhere for a claim.

One could argue that's exactly why they send those letters out as you are deliberately organising your life so you continue to get WTC

Sensible people consider finances prior to cohabiting at least they should do when kids are involved it’s part and parcel of a good decision making process.

She has just made a decision AND is carrying that out correctly and legally without fraud.

People on low incomes still get to make that decision.

How people perceive your relationship is only one aspect. They look at a lot of other factors such as if you cook/eat the majority of your meals together, how you spend your evenings (ie are you together every single evening), how bills are paid (not just household, but eg car bills), whether either of you contribute towards the costs of the other's children, where clothes and personal items are kept.

Another thing they look at is who else lives in the non-resident party's house. If they find out that one of you is claiming to live in a two-bed house but there are two other couples living in it, that rings a huge alarm bell!

It's much better than the old system imo, when women's benefits were stopped because their boyfriends kept a razor and a spare of pants at the girlfriend's house.

When I was a benefits adviser, I dealt with several cohabitation cases and I never had one where I disagreed with the final decision. I had to go to tribunal on one though, because the housing benefit investigator dealing with it was a complete shit.