To think my husband is wrong for reporting my sister for benefit fraud?

[Rockyhardplace25]

So back story:

My sister is a lot younger than me. There is a 15 year age gap- so I basically raised her as my mother was struggling with an alcohol addiction and wasn’t fit to until she went into rehab when my sister was 9. We have a very, strong close relationship.
Sister has also had her own issues with drugs- but when she found out she was pregnant with my niece 8 years ago, went to rehab and has sorted her life out. To some extent.
She has a much older partner, the gap is nearly 30 years, who she met in her addiction who has also, again to some extent, sorted his life out. In that aspect- I take my hat off to both of them.
This man was married with adult children and got my sister pregnant after a one night stand. He left his wife and moved in with my sister. His “other family” have completely cut him off apart from his eldest child- who, from what I can work out, uses him as a bank.

Me and DH have one child, DD who is now a 11, Children are expensive- there’s no two ways about it. With clothing, school trips, days out etc it does add up. DSIS has a 7 year old and is now pregnant with a second child who we are all very excited about.

DSIS doesn’t work and claims sickness benefits, her partner does. Up until recently we assumed she was reporting his income as part of her claim- but we have found out through a slip of the tounge she isn’t. She isn’t even declaring he lives with her, which he does full time. His bank account, car and other things that could link him back to DSIS house is registered to his son’s address. A son he gives £1500 a month too.

DSIS was brought a house when she turned 18 (we have same mum, different dads) so solely pays the mortgage and a lump of the bills herself topped up by her partner. If he/the kids need anything he will go out and buy it but doesn’t directly contribute to the monthly running of the home. Which has pissed me off if I’m honest.

DH is even more pissed off- feels she is taking the piss, as is he, she is committing fraud and why is it fair we both work our arses off to pay our monthly bills when she’s getting it handed to her on a plate but wouldn’t if she was honest. DH thinks if she does that then her partner will leave her because at the moment he’s pretty much living the life of Riley with no expenses.

Hes admitted to me over the weekend he’s reported her for benefit fraud. I don’t know how I feel- I keep flitting from one thing to the next- but ultimately she is my sister and I am worried she will get into serious shit.

Your husband has reported her. You say her partner will leave her, so her benefits will continue and he'll live elsewhere. Is that what your husband wanted?

Serious question: have you spoken to your family member to point out that what they're doing is wrong (legally and morally)? And about the risk they're running of getting caught and the massive impact that would have on their life?
I understand you not wanting to report them, but you're not being a good relative if you don't at least try to persuade them to do the right thing.

Naturally I’ve expressed my views.

Well the reason the DWP would do nothing on the basis of your report is because there's absolutely no problem with someone claiming PIP and then having a partner move in with them as PIP is always an individual claim and isn't means-tested. There would only be a problem if your neighbour was claiming UC as a single person, had their partner move in, and failed to tell the DWP that their claim should now be a joint one with their partner's income taken into account.

I've done 3 appeals in alleged cohabitation cases, and won them all. In each of them, the partner stayed over a lot to support the client with their mental health issues.

The tribunals didn't seem very interested in how many nights a partner stayed the night or anything like that, but in all 3 there was a fair bit of discussion about where the "non-resident" kept their clothes and other belongings, where they were registered to vote, the address their bank statements and other official correspondence went to, driving licence was registered at etc.

This was a few years ago, when the waiting time for tribunal hearings was nowhere near as long as it is now, and all 3 clients managed to survive just on their DLA/PIP while waiting. I hope your DSis will still have some money to live on if the DWP take this seriously and stop her benefits, OP.

Team husband!!!

And if the sister is still on ESA and in the support group, it is contribution-based indefinitely and therefore wouldn't be affected by a partner living with her.

Yeah, I get that. I'm just saying I think he's angry with the partner and is reacting by reporting her.

Well, it's done now. Maybe it will mean he'll have to move out and she can start a new claim. But if she has to pay it all back then her kids will suffer. Not that I condone fraud.

I think everyone in support group is being migrated to UC. So contribution based ESA has been discontinued. New style ESA is not means tested. But I still think they are meant to declare a partner living with them.

The sister could still be on old-style. I work in the SE, and we've only been having ESA clients migrated to UC for a few months. Plenty of my clients are still on ESA, and those that aren't are mostly because either their claims started after new IR-ESA claims stopped or because they had a change of circumstances that triggered the switch to UC.

Perhaps she ought to have considered those consequences before she deliberately committed fraud.

Thank you. Yeah, in my area it's happening this year. Fun times. 🙄
I think a lot of other regions did migrate a few years back.

I suppose it depends on your definition of "partner". To me someone that you've been seeing for a few months isn't really a life partner and probably isn't going to want to pay for her or her other children. She also can't make him pay. All she can (and should) do is make him move out but that wouldn't actually save the taxpayer any money so not sure what's reporting has achieved apart from risking her getting a criminal record.

Pretty bold of you to throw shade at his adult child for using her partner as a bank while you're sister is committing crimes. Has she ever worked?

I'm Team DH. I'd have done the same.

Being family doesn't mean ignoring illegal behaviour, if DH had talked to DH or her Dsis, Dsis would have just denied not declaring and then hidden it all better, it wouldn't have made a difference. He did the correct thing.

To those that are "team DH" what do you think the report will actually achieve? Given the child hasn't been born yet and he has registered everything at his son's address there's no evidence he is living with OP's sister so there will probably be no fine. He's not going to want to financially support a women and children he has only known a few months. Who would? He will just spend fewer night there.

It's interesting that so many people think it's OK for the sister to defraud the system, and at the same time there are threads saying why isn't there money for better benefits and why are taxes so high. Part of the answer is this repeated hundreds or thousands of times around the country, people who won't report family or friends or neighbours for literally stealing money, and the fraudsters can openly brag about what they do because they know family and friends and neighbours won't report them. About time to start dropping them in! Then there would be less taxes and more money for deserving people who really need help.

We have probably all known or still know someone who is claiming illegally, it is these fraudsters that should be blamed and shamed not the guy who reported one of them. It seems to be almost a badge of honour to steal money from the benefit system.

Sorry but if she is doing something illegal then it's her to blame not the person who reported her, you talk about how she could end up in prison but that's the risk you take when you break the law and it's unlikely she would anyway the most likely outcome is she will have to pay back the benefits she was falsely claiming and from then on will have to declare he is living there or he will have to move out if she wants to claim the benefits she's on

I probably would have encouraged her to declare it herself.

I don't think it okay to "defraud" the system but I also don't think it okay to report family members for something that whilst on paper is illegal, isn't actually going to save the tax payer any money. It would be different if they had known each other for years and had children but that isn't the case. There's no way a man is going to want to financially support someone he has only known a couple of months particularly if that person has children. He is officially living with his son and will just make sure no one can prove otherwise.

I think it's fair enough. Sounds like your sister gets waaaay too much off everyone e.g. deposit for a house, benefits, money from her partner etc. It will be good for her to feel the repercussions of her actions. Plus actually budget and be a grown up

Followed his conscience my foot, followed the chip on his shoulder,

I’ve never met anyone who says they work their arses off who actually does.

Good for him, everyone complains there is not enough benefits to go around and having people take it when they are better off than they make out steals it from those without.

Yes, but OP has already told us her DSis is in receipt of UC and hasn't mentioned a cbESA top-up.

Well, sadly, if the DWP investigate and find any evidence of fraud, they could recover DSis' UC over-payments for the time they are able to prove he's been living there, which, obviously, will cause her great harm. Even if they don't, DSis may then be on their radar which won't be a comfortable way to live having to constantly look over her shoulder.
Incidentally, who cares if he doesn't "want" to support his child with DSis? She's pregnant with his baby and he should support this child, whether he likes it or not. Too many "absent" fathers get away with not supporting their DC and leaving it to the state.