To not pay stepchild’s private school fees. part 2

[CloverRiver]

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5439568-to-not-pay-stepchilds-private-school-fees?page=1

previous thread

@ChocolateBoxCottage · Today 16:29

By this logic any adult children living at home would also need to declare income as a adult in the household

Yes this is actually very true and I hadn’t thought of that. Will my adult DC need to declare their incomes too then? The nominal rent they pay me?

You’d certainly have to declare that as income, and have them as lodgers. Which would further reduce bursary entitlement

Another poster on the previous thread made an interesting point about the legal protection of marriage, and the converse.

You’ve chosen not to get married, OP, as the higher earner with your own children and your own assets. Surely this kind of situation is precisely why? In many blended family situations, including yours, it makes financial sense not to wed.

I don't think UC would be as simple as you think, especially as you say he's on the mortgage for your current home. If he moves out then the equity he retains, in a home he no longer lives in, would I believe be assessed as savings. UC would expect him to sell such assets if worth more than £16k.

I understand you don't want to be on the hook for the fees but the alternative could get very messy. I wonder if you buying him out of a chunk of the house would be worth considering.

What does he think of all this? Is he assuming you'll just sign?

So guess you need to decide if the school won’t budge on household income whether you split as a couple or don’t live together for the next 3/4years so they the boy can stay at school via the bursary

if dp moved out would he get help via uc and rent (depends if the house is Co owned)

how long have you been together /live together @CloverRiver

is the mortgage joint or did he move in with you (as you seem to have the money)

and I get why you don’t want to spend £43k over the years as it’s less in your pension pot or to inheritance to your older kids

I mean this is really the upshot...

Same views as @Jellicoo. It just took me a while to type

It’s a weird lose-lose.

It’s the same for student loans, means-tested benefits etc - it’s the household income that’s assessed, not whether the adults are actually married or not, if the adults are a couple.

I still don't understand why two people being in a sexual relationship is considered anyone else's business, or relevant to financial obligations toward minor children.

The OP is not married to this child's father. They have made no contract and what they do behind closed doors is irrelevant.

If OP lived with her brother, or some man she works with, or a random who answered an advertisement, would the bursary office be going after them? Why does the nature of the relationship (as defined by outsiders! which is outrageous!) have any bearing on their financial obligations?

OP has her own old age and her grown children to provide for. Her income and assets are not fair game for her boyfriend's creditors to be eyeballing.

it's not adults living in the household, it's the following:

Complete this form if you are:
• The student’s natural or adoptive parent;
• The student’s step-parent;
• The husband, wife, civil partner or cohabiting partner of one of the student’s parents;

I think couples can separate and stay living in the same house for a certain grace period, as it’s accepted they will need to sort out the logistics.

If the adults are a couple....

Why would their private relationship be relevant? I realize that I keep asking this but ...

So if Joe and I share a flat but have separate bedrooms, the bursary office wouldn't go after me? Unless someone tattled that we visit one another's bedrooms from time to time? But if Jane and share a flat and have separate bedrooms and don't sleep together, her income would not be considered fair game by the bursary office? What if Joe and I share a bedroom but never have sex and don't mingle our finances, but rather split everything 50/50?

What if my Aunt Agatha moves into my spare room; would her pension and savings be taken into consideration? If I let a work mate's daughter live here because my home is near her new office, does that count?

I mean, it should be based on PR only. Parsing people's personal lives and expense-sharing relationships, and deciding what unrelated people can "afford" to contribute is ridiculous.

I think the logic of the university assessments by student finance (which I do not agree with, especially when unmarried) is that as someone else is paying towards the household costs (council tax, mortgage, home insurance, etc) he will have more money to pay fees than if he lived as the lone adult. And not that each adult should pay half the fees.

But regarding this particular school - really don't think that a parent's partner should be asked to sign anything at all with regards to fees for a child that isn't theirs.

Because cohabiting couples have the choice to move in together or not. There’s perks like reduced bills and drawbacks like less access to state funds or charity. They can decide whether to move in together or not. If benefits were allocated regardless of household income, you’d be rewarding parents who split over parents who stay together, and how’s that fair?

It would be great if biological parents were forever forced to fund their own children but so many (like this SS’ mum) don’t bother.

I still don't understand why two people being in a sexual relationship is considered anyone else's business, or relevant to financial obligations toward minor children.

Because a bursary is essentially free money, given only to people that really need it, so they need to means test it.

When you are couple living together you are jointly responsible for your household income and expenditure. So if OP was a millionaire, do you think it would be morally right for their household to claim free money (on the basis of poverty) for a dependent who is living in their care?

If OP lived with her brother, or some man she works with, or a random who answered an advertisement, would the bursary office be going after them?

No, because it is only parents, step-parents, or the the husband, wife, civil partner or cohabiting partner of one of the student’s parents.

If OP moved out, or if they broke up, the assessment would be re-calculated.

Someone suggested splitting and yiur partner getting UC. Surely this is not what it is for if some of monthly expenditure is to be spent on private school fees?

I definitely wouldn’t pay it. I would rather separate than pay.

No it isn’t. Ridiculously, if he moved out and claimed UC he’d still get his bursary for his son. I don’t make the rules, but if it’s between the tax payer subsidising this (of which I was and still am a high rate tax payer, in the tens of thousands) or me out of my personal funds, I’d rather the former.

If OP moved out, or if they broke up, the assessment would be re-calculated

Except she's being asked to sign a form saying she will pay the fees whatever.

"When you are couple living together you are jointly responsible for your household income and expenditure. "

Says who? Who knows what private arrangements people have, or what other obligations they have. Again, they aren't married; they are not legally or publicly a contracted unit.

How can this third party decree something that the people themselves (people, not a couple, unless they announce they are a couple) have not?

Again, I realize bursary decisions don't have to be rational; I am just surprised at the number of people perpetuating the irrationality. Just because I live with someone doesn't mean I am financially ameliorating their circumstances or vice versa, and certainly doesn't mean my income is available to them, to enable them to provide for their kids. Or anyone else.

Any two people on the planet have a choice to move in together or not. What does that have to do with anything?

Says the people giving the money - in this case, the school.

Is your relationship not that serious/potentially long term/marriage OP? I'm not being snarky, I'm trying to understand your position.

As a higher rate tax payer, paying tens of thousands of pounds in tax, you surely have the disposable income to contribute towards this in some way, even by temporarily subsidising the household while he sorts the school issue? The issue is you just don't want to? It's fair enough, but at odds with what you said in your first OP, which was:

Before people suggest pulling him out and putting him in state, he has moderate autism, so he really does need and benefit from the school.

What difference does her relationship status or intentions make? They are NOT married now and she is not the child's parent or guardian. Nor will she ever be.

They have as much of a legal relationship as they do to the person next in the queue at Tesco. For all practical purposes they are roommates. What they do behind closed doors is irrelevant.

It is not for outsiders to determine how they should mingle and share their incomes.

Think of it in terms of benefits. A and B have two kids, split up, and A and the kids get £100 benefits. Then they move in with C. They keep the £100 benefits.

D and E have two kids. They get no benefits.

Why should A and C be better off than D and E?