Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think she's being a right CF?

503 replies

itchybumhole · 17/09/2018 13:50

A bit of background first, and I'll try my best to give all the relevant information, but as I don't know much about the workings of the system I'm unsure what I need to include.

My partner split with his wife 3 years ago after 13 years together and 7 years of marriage. They have an 11 year old child together. Their marriage ended very acrimoniously after a series of infidelities on her part.
When they separated he immediately moved out of the family home with just his personal belongings and stayed with his parents until he could find a rental place. Since leaving he has paid her child maintenance by private agreement on a weekly basis.

She has today received a letter from HRMC saying she needs to repay tens of thousands of pounds in overpaid tax credits. The tax credits were paid to her during the time that he had left the family home. (He's always worked full time. When he left she went on to benefits. She hasn't worked in 13 years apparently).
The notice says that if she claimed as a couple then both parties must repay, so she called him today and said he's liable for half. His answer was... but how can I be? I have receipts for rent paid to my own house. I didn't benefit from this overpayment so why should I pay half back?
We're both so confused. What does he do now? I've told him to call HRMC but he's still smarting from the phone call from his ex wife. We're these benefits claimed fraudulently? And is he liable to repay half as she insists?
Thank you for any help or advice.

OP posts:
theworldistoosmall · 18/09/2018 01:07

Yes, when it's a joint claim which this isn't as she claimed as a single person.

Ellie56 · 18/09/2018 01:10

"The notice says that if she claimed as a couple then both parties must repay,"

But she didn't did she? she claimed as a single person after your DP moved out, and then failed to notify a change of circumstances. She is deliberately misinterpreting what the letter says.

She and her current DP have benefited from money they are not entitled to. They now have to pay it back. The loan that never was and the reference to claiming as a couple are red herrings. Ex is clutching at straws and twisting things to try and get your DP to pay her debt. And now she is resorting to emotional blackmail, threatening to move away if he doesn't pay up!

Your DP should refuse to pay and get legal advice if she carries out her threat of moving DD miles away from him.

Willyoujustbequiet · 18/09/2018 01:14

Itchy

Shoite is incorrect. I did all the joint claims throughout my marriage from when we first started claiming well over 10 years ago.

I always did them over the phone. I never did a paper claim.

Walkingdeadfangirl · 18/09/2018 01:58

Time for father to take custody of his child. Mother is obviously a money sucking shrew.

nailak · 18/09/2018 02:19

Normally they don't make you pay back the full amount as a lump sum, they take it slowly out of whatever they are paying you

justilou1 · 18/09/2018 02:55

If she’s stupid enough to text threats like that, then they can be used against her by a solicitor to stop her moving, right? Isn’t it illegal to threaten the other parent’s access rights?

SmurfandTurf · 18/09/2018 07:16

Haha MissHavershamssis you’ve mentioned me in every message, obsessed much?

Sorry, I’m taken.

Soontobe60 · 18/09/2018 07:31

I'm not entirely sure why there are so many people posting insults to the OP.
It's easy!
Couple split up, he moves out leaving her with car.
He applies for loan for new car but uses old address, which he shouldn't have. He doesn't get the loan.
She applies for tax credits which she's entitled to.
She moves BF in but fails to inform Tax credits, therefore getting them fraudulently now.
HMRC do a check and find details of loan application so want all Tcs back.
He needs to prove he didn't live there from when she claimed.
She will keep tax credits from this date up to point when she moved Bf in.
She will have to return tcs from the point bf moved in.
He has not been fraudulent, apart from using an old address on his loan application. He would have had to put that DP address on anyway as his previous address.
Tax credit fraud costs the country millions! She needs to pay it back, not him!

wotsit99 · 18/09/2018 07:43

If she didn't want to get caught she shouldn't have committed fraud in the first place. She is responsible for paying it back.
It's not like he intentionally shopped her in any case.
Can't understand all the hateful comments towards the DP.
Some threads turn vicious for no good reason .

MissHavershamssis · 18/09/2018 08:36

*SmurfandTurf Tue 18-Sep-18 07:16:21
Haha MissHavershamssis you’ve mentioned me in every message, obsessed much?

Sorry, I’m taken.*

Seriously? Confused How childish - instead of acting like a 12 year old in the playground perhaps you could admit you bullied the OP because of your own agenda?

Nah, thought not.

Bluntness100 · 18/09/2018 08:39

At the very worst, he is liable for the period between him moving out and him applying for thr loan, if he cannot prove he didn't live there during this period.

After this, and from the moment he can prove he didn't live there he is no longer liable. That's down to her and the new partner.

However I assume he could prove he didn't live there during this period between him moving out and applying for thr loan. As such, there should be no pay back for this period.

The period where she is claiming for when she lived with the new boyfriend, which appears to be the bulk of it, is clearly on her.

flamingofridays · 18/09/2018 09:00

graphista that was a spectacularly long reply for someone who clearly hasn't read the thread properly at all.

she's committed benefit fraud, he's done nothing wrong. Why are you defending that?

OhLookHeKickedTheBall · 18/09/2018 09:09

You should advise your DP to get legal advice over this and her threats. Make sure he gathers up evidence he'd moved out at the time so he can provide this. What happens on the other end re her new partner is for them to resolve.

RainbowsArePretty · 18/09/2018 09:14

Sounds sensible that he called. Perhaps while things are clear in his head he should draw up a factual timeline relating to their separation and send that to HMRC. He should include all relevant information such as where he was living and applying for the loan etc

SmurfandTurf · 18/09/2018 09:24

I haven’t bullied the op at all.

He was wrong to apply for the loan at her address. He’d moved out. What’s being said is that he did nothing wrong. He did. He knows he did. The truth had to be squeezed out of him. He’s a dishonest person.

This is just a benefits bashing thread. Replies would be completely different if the ex wife worked.

flamingofridays · 18/09/2018 09:27

smurf out of interest, do you not think committing benefit fraud is wrong?

my opinion would be entirely the same if she worked and was committing benefit fraud.

absolutely NOTHING wrong with receiving benefits when you're entitled to them.

SmurfandTurf · 18/09/2018 09:33

I haven’t bullied the op at all.

He was wrong to apply for the loan at her address. He’d moved out. What’s being said is that he did nothing wrong. He did. He knows he did. The truth had to be squeezed out of him. He’s a dishonest person.

This is just a benefits bashing thread. Replies would be completely different if the ex wife worked.

He needs to help prove he didn’t live there for the time before her new dp moved in. What happens after is none of his or her business. That’s on the ex wifes back. That’s not what I’m disputing. If she committed benefit fraud by not declaring her new dp had moved in then that’s her problem. But no one has proof she didn’t tell them. Or that the new dp moved in permanently 2 years ago. the only evidence the op has of that date is from the mouth of a 6 year old. He could have just stayed over every so often. Who knows? Not me or you or anyone on this thread. It’s all speculation. The point is that the OPs dp needs to help prove he moved out when he did. Once he does that his obligation is over. Whatever happens next is none of their business.

SmurfandTurf · 18/09/2018 09:35

Of course it’s wrong. But she didn’t commit benefit fraud between the time the ops dp left and her new dp moved in.

SmurfandTurf · 18/09/2018 09:36

Everyone’s acting like she did. She was entitled to that money. So shouldn’t have to pay it back.

Bluntness100 · 18/09/2018 09:40

Eh, no, but it looks like she has done it for the last two years.

No one is disputing that he needs to prove he didn't live there for that period. But the way you attacked the op, was quite shocking,

flamingofridays · 18/09/2018 09:42

nobodys saying she committed fraud in the first year Hmm

op has stated her dp has offered ex the relevant things to prove this to HMRC but she was "non comital" probably because by giving them that she's admitting committing fraud for the subsequent years!

SmurfandTurf · 18/09/2018 09:48

How?

If he gives her the evidence he moved out on the date she says, how would that have further repercussions? And how is that admitting fraud for the other years? It would make her case stronger.

Graphista · 18/09/2018 09:51

I can assure you I did read the thread and I am not defending benefit fraud.

I am however, sceptical that the tone and info of op's posts changed hugely after it was clear that several pps were suss re ops partner being less than forthcoming about the loan, what his ex had said etc.

I'm always conscious on mn that we're only getting one persons point of view from the op and I recognise that op's aren't always reliable narrators - they have biases and agendas.

Op could be telling the whole truth or she could be not wanting her partner to be viewed negatively, but more than happy to portray his ex negatively. Some of op's negative comments re his ex weren't even relevant to the situation under discussion.

Bluntness100 · 18/09/2018 09:52

Smurf, are you genuinely struggling to understand this or are you being deliberately obtuse.

Him proving he moved out, means there is no money due back until the new partner moved in. There is money due for the last two years whilst the new partner lived there and she committed benefit fraud.

I really don't think we can continue to explain it to you. You might have to simply accept that you can't grasp it and that you've been attacking rhe op when quite frankly the op has done nothing wrong.

flamingofridays · 18/09/2018 09:52

smurf she moved her partner in and continued claiming as if she was single. how is that not fraud?

if she's been claiming since lets say april 2015

from april 2015 - april 2016 - claiming properly - doesn't need to repay

april 2016 - 2017 - partner moves in claiming fraudulently does need to pay

april 2017-2018 - partner still there still claiming fraudulently needs to repay

so tax credits will have wrote to her saying hi ex, we think you've been claiming fraudulently since april 2015

she replies saying no my husband moved out april 2015 (true) then they say but you've had someone living there since 2016 as well and they will still make her re pay!

im not sure you quite understand what she's done here

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is closed and is no longer accepting replies. Click here to start a new thread.