To think she's being a right CF?

[itchybumhole]

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.

@itchybumhole none of that is relevant though. He might be everything you think he is but he also might be spinning you a pack of lies. He’s already proven he is a liar by trying to take a loan out in her address. Despite everything he’s told you, that is what’s caused all this and he only confessed after a few minutes of ‘stony silence’

He definitely did that, and that’s the one he’s been caught for. What else is he done that he’s got away with? Or that’s not come to light yet?

The crux of it is, the loan application is what’s caused all this. His doing. And he needs to do everything he can to help his ex wife prove she was an innocent party to his lies in the time she was claiming benefits as a single parent. Of his child.

You still haven’t answered if she knew he’d applied for the loan.

I know that it isn't relevant which is why until now I haven't mentioned it. I'm simply trying to demonstrate that after his marriage ended he was not of sound mind. He did lots of questionable things in that time, which he openly talks about and isn't at all proud of.

Sorry, I haven't answered that, have I.

No she did not know that he applied for a loan on their house when he had left the premises.

Also I forgot to say! I typed it out and then my phone died, upon which I forgot all about it not being posted...

They are having a discussion face to face about it all this evening when he returns his daughter home. So hopefully it will all be resolved one way or another and we will know if he's liable to pay half.
In that case it will impact on me as we'd discussed living together after Christmas, so will be servicing the debt out of our household income I guess.

But halfblood shes not innocent if she's been claiming as single when shes not...

If you've read any of the tax credits threads on here you will see that HMRC use any excuse to state there is fraud. If he went to stay with his parents it's unlikely there will be any proof of him moving out as it's likely all his financials will be at the house address until he secured his own tenancy. HMRC fail to realise that normal people's lives are messy and complicated rather than your do would have moved out on x date with all financial links severed on the same day. So yes the loan complicated things but basically your do needs to help his ex prove when he moved out.

Arnold
Good point. He paid his mum and dad rent when he was there. He's been quite meticulous in making sure all his rent payments to his parents and his child support payments to his ex wife are clearly labelled on his statements.

he can't seem to give a straight answer.

I wonder what else he doesn’t give straight answers about further down the line. When someone tells you who they are, LISTEN!

All that proves it that she is telling the truth when she says hmrc told her it was because of the loan. As she wouldn’t have known about it.

All he has to do is comply with her. If she can prove he wasn’t living there then she won’t have to pay the money back at all. He should do everything in his power to help her prove this. He should also admit to applying for the loan without her permission, no matter the repercussions. It’s not her fault. I can understand her saying he has to pay half because he caused it but like I said she won’t have to pay it back if he helps her.

Sorry if it seems I’m having a go at you, that’s not my intention.

In my experience HMRC are not very good when faced with and family circumstances that don't fit their tick boxes. Which is to say most of them

Flamingofridays she was single for a year after the dp left. She wasn’t claiming fraudulently in that year. Whether she has been since then is not proven.

Itchy

The thresholds were a bit more generous a few years back so he could have been earning a decent wage and still have been eligible for an award. She may have done it over the phone. I used to with my ex, he didnt get involved or receive the money but legally they told us he was jointly liable as he didnt inform them when he moved out.

He really needs to get specifics from HMRC.

Yes, nothing has been proven at all yet. It will all come out in the wash very soon.

You're missing the point @TheHalfBloodPrincess she hasn't asked him to provide evidence he didn't live there so that she can refute the accusation from HMRC, she's demanding he coughs up half the overpayment!!

Why on earth would she do that if she was genuinely entitled to the benefit??

The only reason to pay up rather than provide evidence your claim was genuine is that you know your claim WASNT genuine.

*Ceilingfan
*
I'm not going to end what I think is a strong relationship with good possibilities for the future because of one lapse in judgement made when he was at his lowest ebb.
He hasn't lied to me. He tried to take out a loan against his own house, when his wife and he were in the process of breaking up. He was in and out of the home on an almost monthly basis for almost a year.

I know some mumsnet users seems to hold with the view that all men are bad and advise that they should be dumped at once on every single threat. But this one's a good one and I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt until he actually lies to me directly or does something worthy of getting the flick.

*Frangipaniblue
*
Exactly. This is the reason I think she's not been playing by the rules. If I was accused of fraud and I knew I was innocent, as soon as an investigation began I would start gathering paperwork and evidence in support of my entitlement.

I’m not missing the point. She asked him to sign a statement to say he wasn’t living there at the time. He refused so she’s come back with you’ll have to pay half the money then.

Exactly. This is the reason I think she's not been playing by the rules. If I was accused of fraud and I knew I was innocent, as soon as an investigation began I would start gathering paperwork and evidence in support of my entitlement

And she asked for his help weeks ago and he wouldn’t sign the letter.

She didn't ask for his help. She said she was being investigated by HRMC and if she drew up a document of sorts, would he sign it?
He said yes. But only if it was truthful!

Just to clarify something. Joint claims were not taken over the phone until earlier this year. Up until that point all joint claims had to be made via the claim form.

The ex needs to submit a Mandatory Reconsideration within 30 days of the decision to end her claim. She will need to provide as much proof as possible that she was single during the period in question.

She can provide another address(his parents house) and HMRC will check any links to that address. She should explain that she was not aware of any loan applications made too.

It’s possible to have the decision changed but she only has limited time and will need to send lots of info to convince them

No, that's wrong. She didn't stipulate what the statement or document would say. She was very cagey about it all.
Why didn't she just ask him back then to gather the evidence she needed. Surely HRMC would have told her what she needed to do?

*Shoite
*
Thank you. That's interesting to know and good advice to pass on.

hope it gets sorted OP

Thank you. He's on his way there to talk about it now.

More news just in... I asked him how much the loan was for. He said he thinks it was about 2k. He just wanted a car, any car, to get to work. He was declined because his credit rating is 'shot to pieces'. I'll ask him more about that another time.
Apparently the loan was unsecured, he used his old address in the form though. I don't know if that makes much difference, morally or otherwise.
I suspect not.

Sorry - you originally said he applied for the loan simply using that address.

Now you say he applied for a loan against the house - if the latter is true, and she co owns it, that is fraud.

The two things are different, so which was it?