Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU benefits of marriage without marriage

369 replies

serbska · 30/08/2018 09:41

Yes another persona complaining LIFE ISN'T FAIR because they can't access a benefit for married people, because they weren't married.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-45348176/bereavement-allowance-widowed-mum-on-why-her-kids-are-penalised

If you want to be free and easy, stay as DPs. If you want the legal protection and benefits of married, get married. It costs a few quid down the registry office.

OP posts:
Original poster
serbska · 30/08/2018 09:41

OMG what a fuck up in the title WHY DID I PUT A D IN THERE????????

marridge
marridge
marridge
marridge

  • [Message from MNHQ: Don't worry, OP, we've changed it!]
OP posts:
AynRandTheObjectivist · 30/08/2018 09:42

I assumed that was some sort of cultural in-joke that I didn't get.

Anyway, place marking.

HRTpatch · 30/08/2018 09:42

There was a woman on Bbc news this morning saying " no one taught us this at school". Shock
Ffs.

pointythings · 30/08/2018 09:45

If we could have civil partnerships for straight couples in the way that they do in many European countries, this wouldn't be a problem. The UK needs to stop being precious about this and sort this out.

AsleepAllDay · 30/08/2018 09:53

MAWWIDGE

0range99 · 30/08/2018 09:55

I think the problem is that those who wish to protect their assets by not getting married, would refuse to sign up to a civil partnership.

NailsNeedDoing · 30/08/2018 09:58

On the whole, I agree with you, people shouldn't get the benefits of marriage without being married. But I think widowed parents allowance is different, it's for children.

Our benefit system counts couples as couples when they are claiming for tax credits if they live together, so I can't see why they can't do it for this. It's not a benefit that is open to any abuse, it's a tiny tiny proportion of the overall benefits bill, and people understandably, genuinely, need it when their spouse has just died and they and their children are in shock and grieving. I think it would be fair to means test it and withhold it where there has been a big insurance payout, but that's unlikely to happen where a couple are unmarried anyway.

Other than child benefit, bereavement benefits like this are the only ones I've ever claimed, and I find it very hard to stomach that anyone would begrudge a family such a small amount of state help at a time when they are in extreme and awful circumstances.

Bluelady · 30/08/2018 09:59

It's got bugger all to do with civil partnerships and everything to do with demanding all the benefits of an institution without committing to it. It's like asking an insurance company for compensation when your house burns down when you didn't bother to take out a policy.

SilverySurfer · 30/08/2018 10:05

It's not rocket science is it. If you want the benefits and protection provided by marriage, get married. If you don't, then don't.

Original poster
serbska · 30/08/2018 10:08

I think I prefer that spelling AsleepAllDay ;-)

@0range99 if people want pot protect their assets and not get married that is a conscious choice that needs to be weighed up against the loss of rights that being in a marriage contact affords you.

I find it very hard to stomach that anyone would begrudge a family such a small amount of state help at a time when they are in extreme and awful circumstances

I don't begrudge the payments - but you are either married or not, and either have dependent children nor not. It is a simple and easy way to make or not make the payments.

What about a man who has fathered 4 children by 3 different mothers and isn't married to any of them. Do they all receive the payments? Should the mother who has 2 children receive more than the mothers who have 1 child with him?

OP posts:
NailsNeedDoing · 30/08/2018 10:32

Obviously, you can have dependant children without being married. Single parents who have their ex die will presumably already be entitled to whatever benefits their household circumstances dictate, and they will not be going through the same trauma that comes with losing a live in parent or spouse, although their situation may well still come with difficulties.

I think things have changed since I put in my claim for widowed parents allowance, but one of the conditions of was is that you were living with the deceased. I don't see why that needs to change tbh. It generally costs more to support a household than it does to make maintenance payments to an ex, and as maintenance payments aren't included in benefit calculations the home with NRP who has died should still be ok financially. If it isn't, then that is down to problems with other benefits. The household that has lost someone to support it needs the money most. It's only given for a short amount of time anyway nowadays.

ConservativeMummyWummy68 · 30/08/2018 10:38

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

pointythings · 30/08/2018 11:11

If they aren’t married, they’re living in sin and don’t deserve money.

Please let this be ironic. Alternatively, the 12th century is >>>> that way.

Littleloaf · 30/08/2018 11:14

@AsleepAllDay Princess Bride reference? That's exactly what the title made me think as well! Grin

OpalTree · 30/08/2018 11:14

They got rid of widowed parents' allowance a year ago. My dh died too late for us to get it. Angry

ReanimatedSGB · 30/08/2018 11:20

Good point about unmarried couples being treated the same WRT tax credits. The government will cut your money if you have a partner who sleeps over 'too often' but deny you money despite the fact that you have lived together for decades... Funny, that.

OpalTree · 30/08/2018 11:21

It's strange they aren't bothering to mention that if your spouse died after April 2017 you don't get Widowed Parents Allowance as they scrapped it

BunsOfAnarchy · 30/08/2018 11:21

Shes won it! Im just reading this thread and a notification came up that she'd won.

BunsOfAnarchy · 30/08/2018 11:22

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-45355028

SassitudeandSparkle · 30/08/2018 11:24

She's won her case apparently.

Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar · 30/08/2018 11:24

So, they’ll have to weigh up the “freedom” of not being married against the fact that not being married; the state will respect this by not treating you as if you are.
It’s not that bloody difficult to get your head round?

Iamagreyhoundhearmeroar · 30/08/2018 11:25

She’s won? Wow! That’ll open the floodgates...

Bluelady · 30/08/2018 11:26

They're going to stop calling it Widowed Parents' Allowance now because this case has turned it into something else. It seems completely illogical to me.

sparklewater · 30/08/2018 11:27

Good for her! Things only change if people fight for them. This is the right and fair outcome.

Racecardriver · 30/08/2018 11:27

One could make an argument for keeping this benefit for married couples only because it insentivises marriage (which is obviously a good thing given that marriage helps prevent situations where one spouse ends up on benefits as a result of relationship breakdown, supposedly results in longer lasting relationships-although I doubt this somewhat, etc.). I think it's high time that adults stop blaming the government for their woes and took some responsibility.arroahe is open to everyone. If you need the protections afforded by marriage then insist on marriage.