Couples who live separately so they get additional financial support

[slimline]

A couple I know got married over a year ago, yet they still live separately. She has two children from a previous relationship and lives in a 3 bed house. He lives in a 2 bed house and has no children. I mention the size of their homes because it’s clear that there is ample space for the entire family to live under one roof. I can’t think of any other reason for their separate living arrangements (considering they have made a commitment to each other through marriage) aside from financial security, as her eldest child has SEN and she doesn’t work. He is working, which I assume could complicate things if he were to move in. Yes, I understand it’s legal, but I can’t help but think they’re taking advantage of the system in some way. This isn't the first time I've heard of couples or families living apart in order to increase their income. I’m ready to be accused of benefit bashing or called all the names under the sun. Don’t care sorry!

Off the top of my head….

Investments
Inheritance
Insurance payouts
Private pensions
Widows pensions
Property
Family money/trust funds
Spousal or child maintenance
Invisible work like overnight care, fostering, Online tutoring etc
Online businesses like YouTube channels, app subscriptions or repairing phones by post
Socially unacceptable work like only fans or escort work
Sex work
Unusual irregular work like ecology or forestry surveys
Gambling

There are plenty of ways to make money that don’t involve going to an office everyday, and that people who do invalidate as not working. Not everyone’s life looks like yours.

There are plenty of ways to have a relationship that don’t look like your household. That’s OK. It’s not a criticism of your lifestyle if that works for you. It’s not ‘unfair’. You live in the same system and could make the same choices.

Even if they are on benefits and living apart to be better off, they didn’t make the rules. And the rules are the same for everyone. Why shouldn’t they have the living arrangements that work best for them if it’s within the rules. How many people don’t need child benefit to feed their children, but still claim it and spend it on funsies? It’s morally no different, you’re just haggling over price.

If they lived together, he would be financially better off, have more space, more financial control, more power, do less work and still be able to easily waltz off any time. There is little benefit in living with a man and very significant risks and penalties. I think we should be promoting systems and venerating women who force men to cede control in families. They’ve had long enough to do it voluntarily and they don’t.

What a stupid reply. No I'm not a hero, just a normal person working full time who doesn't resent others not as fortunate. And I certainly don't have the desire to be obnoxious and rude to complete strangers on the internet either.

AFAIK, even if you live separately if you're in a relationship with someone you have to take responsibility so unless they are claiming fraudulently then I don't see what they are gaining. If they're married then she would have to state that I think whether or not they're under the same roof.

The good news is that the schools re-open on Monday. 😁

The DWP only care if you live together under the same roof.

This is not the case.

They don’t really care about relationship status, it is about your actual living situation not your marital status. So if living in separate homes, can prove that, manage your own money, not joint finances etc then there is no reason you can’t claim.

I don’t want it to seem like I think everyone on here supporting this is a bit dim, but can’t you all see this isn’t tenable long term? Can’t you see that people playing the system is to the detriment of those who are in dire need of help and they arent using free money for ‘funsies’.

All it’s going to take is our country to start defaulting on loans and the whole welfare state gets swept away. We absolutely HAVE to have to people who can work, start working to support those who are genuinely in need. I don’t think this has really sunk in.

They are not playing the system.

@Jellybunny98 ,ah OK I had friends who worked for dss years ago, and would spy on folk to make sure they weren't staying over at a partners house more than a certain amount of time as that would mean they were in a relationship and therefore ineligible for benefits if one of them was working, obviously things have changed.

If for example he has a HA / Council house
he might not want to give it up - same for her
his rent might be low 400 450 a month is avarage where I live
add in council tax say 200 250
minimal bills of 100
he’s maybe paying out 800 a month so he had left maybe 1800 -1900 a month left

she probably ends up with a similar amount but if he moved in with her full time his money would replace her money that she gets so they would effectively loose around 2k a month
not to mention any free school meals prescriptions - subsidized trips to the Tower of London 😂😂😂

they have done the sums and made the correct decision financially for them

I know a few friends & family members who have done the same and it’s perfectly legal to do

also if she has a council house / HA they might not let her add him to the tenancy straight away so he’s got no real security but given up his own home

I don’t blame them one bit for doing exactly what they can do legally

I don’t want to seem like I think you are a bit dim but… can’t you see that’s actually not the issue here?

Her husband presumably is working, she presumably can’t work because she is a single parent of 2 kids one with SEN.

Supporting her is exactly what UC is for.

The issue here isn’t about people not working who can work- I agree that is the case, we need everyone who can work to be in work, absolutely.

The issue here is more broad in that if these people move in together then she loses £2195 a month, the money she uses to fund her & her children's lives, and a man who is not their father would be expected to make up that shortfall. Is that fair? We certainly don’t expect the average dad on an average salary to pay anywhere near £2195 in child maintenance.

If they moved in together she would be losing all financial independence, if nothing else.

Of course people are! You are in cloud cuckoo land if you think that all benefit claimants are in genuine need. This particular example is just a handy loophole to exploit. Live in separate houses, but in every other conceivable way live as married people. Hate the game not the player. I get it. Fun money.

My question is; you realise this isn’t tenable on long term basis? More and more net takers and fewer and fewer people paying in? Like people understand the money tree is just the government printing money which pushes inflation higher as it dilutes the pound. I assume people realise this?

Then tell the DWP to change the law fro
so that being married is counted for benefits even if you live apart

at present only living together is what counts
nothing else for the purpose of UC

The law is what it is and this couple are perfectly entitled to live like this when this law is in place

This can still be the case, but if they have their own homes with rental agreements, bills, council tax etc to prove that they are living separately then that is ultimately going to be enough here.

They aren’t “ playing the system”. There’s nothing to say married people have to live together - it’s a convention.
Generally it works better to live together financially, logistically and because you want to be around the person you love.

If any of those things aren’t true for your relationship then why would you?

It is not a loophole. The DWP literally only care if you actually live in the same household. You can not force a couple to live together.

Their definition of a couple, and therefore needing to make a joint UC claim are people who are actually living together

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/universal-credit-and-couples-an-introduction/universal-credit-further-information-for-couples

So the state might be supporting her child rather than her husband? I’ve got zero problem with that. Women being financially dependence a men, particularly if they have children from other relationships, is not an ideal way to live.

It’s a legal loophole. One that’s been the case for the past 30 years and probably longer

So they and anyone else who wishes can use it however they want to because they aren’t breaking the law

even if the kids were his and they lived apart
it would still be perfectly legal to do
he could even send her maintenance and absolutely nothing could be proven

The aim of Reform and their right wing counterparts abroad is to keep people in a permanent state of anger.

Whether it's immigrants, benefits or the bloody flags makes no difference.

Human life is complex and there'll never be some perfect system where no-one ever finds a way to "take advantage". But the alternative is far, far worse - look at history!

And of course if the OP themself or any of their family ever needs benefits that will be entirely different - they'll "deserve" them. It's just other people who don't.

Tell that to pensioners.

the reason there is so many on UC is because the old legacy benefits has pretty much ended
by the end of this year anyone who was on the old style benefits will have moved over to UC hence the numbers being so much higher
Even though in real terms nothing has changed just that everyone is on UC rather then two seperate benefits

No one in their right mind is going to give up the best part of 2k a month plus possible free school meals, prescription , dentist
I definitely wouldn’t and I wouldn’t give a shit what anyone thought about me

just to be morally right and good and please the op and people like her

They aren’t breaking any laws
the op might not like it but tough shit
what she thinks isn’t important
it’s what the law is and the law states this is perfectly legal

if she is that bothered she can claim UC her self and do it she might need to get a few disabled kids

That’s literally ‘the game.’ You’ve proved the point. If the game makes playing the system more profitable than working, then people will choose to exploit the framework to their benefit. People are pissed off with governments allowing it, hence the OP and others being annoyed.

Again, there is no "playing the game" or "loopholes".
It as plain as day that the DWP only see you as a couple if you live under the same household, and it is then you have to make a joint claim.

And constantly ‘whataboutering’ pensioners to obfuscate everyone else is also unhelpful as it changes nothing.

Labour came in having identified changes that needed to be made to the welfare system and were unable to press ahead with those changes due to their backbenchers. They then had to perform one of their many u-turns and instead gave away more money, not less. Hence why they are a weak government. The only changes they are able to perform are ones that involve taxes on everyone above minimum wage. That’s literally all they have accomplished so far.

i am telling you the system has loopholes that people exploit. You tell me the system is just the system and people pop their figures into the Entitledto website, and the Magic Money Tree drops pound coins, like fallen leaves, into their bank accounts.

Potatoes. Potartoes.