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!

Who is to say that he isn’t involved with the kids. You don’t need to live together to be involved and in fact it’s the living together that seems to cause issues in blended families.

And if he’s their mums husband, he’s their stepdad. Again, that’s not dependent on cohabitation. Most kids with divorced parents can’t meaningfully be said to live with both parents (EOW/e isn’t living with) but they can still have a close relationship.

unlrss you know all their financial affairs you can’t know the situation- if she is claiming benefits as if single/on her own then yes I would say it’s taking the piss , however I wouldn’t think you know if she is, he may well be contributing and her not claiming and they live this way ‘by choice’ for other reasons

I think listing off all what happens as a result of relationship breakdown and normalising it is unhelpful societally. There is data that confirms the most beneficial set up for children to thrive is a safe, stable home environment, ideally with both parents insitu.

Of course this is dependant on both parents being healthy and functional. Of course no one wants people staying together if there is arguments or violence. Of course all families come in all shapes and sizes and there can be same sex relationships. Of course this doesn’t allow for ill health and bereavement and of course the couple doesn’t have to be married.

Having said all of that normalising men walking away from their families and seeing their kids occasionally is fucked up. Normalising divorce and blended families encourages more of it. Normalising feckless parents who refuse to contribute financially for their kids is giving them free reign to keep doing it as others will pick up the bill. Normalising mummy getting married but we haven’t met him and he lives an hours drive away is errrrm just bloody weird etc etc.

"How can you progress a relationship and begin to merge lives with another person whilst seemingly trying to keep your partner/husband completely separate from your children?"

We don't know that they are completely separate.
I think there are too many people who move a partner in with their children too quickly and that is where concerns lie.

The law says that is only the case if you live together. Not if you merely marry.

Surely 'stay single' doesn't have to be the only answer to the problems of blending families, thought, @EvangelicalAboutButteredToast? I can see how being married but living apart might work best for some families. If it works for them, it can't be wrong, can it?

If it works for them let them fund it. Then you won’t have to deal with tax payers having any opinion on it whatsoever.

Do you really think the small amount they would lose in benefits would be more than the large amount they need to pay to run a second home?

But why not? Who says? Makes a mockery of what? The Bible? The way some other people do it? Thankfully in 2026 there are many many different ways to be in relationships. The only issue I would have if is they were both the biological parents of a child and choosing to present as single for UC purposes while he 'lived' with his parents but as thats not the case here, not sure what the issue is.

Freedom of speech means you can talk about stuff that's none of your business. It's still none of your business.

No, I don't assume that. Increasingly we see people, me included very much not 'coming as a package'. My kids are the responsibility of me and ex H. My now partner of a decade knows them, chats to them, helps them out with tech occasionally but I can count on one hand the meals we've all sat down to together. We've never had a day out or holiday together. He's my partner who they know and like but he's separate to them. As it happens I earn enough that I dont claim UC but if I did, his romantic relationship with me wouldn't come into it. Why should it?

Oh and I think my relationship is far less likely to fail than ones that are forced together by financial necessity and uneasily coexist til it all blows up.

As I’ve said a million times already, you pay your own bills, it’s none of my business. You could have him sleeping in a dog kennel at the end of he garden for all I care.

She is paying her own bills as is he. She is doing it with legitimate assistance from the state. Her bills are not his bills, regardless of their relationship status. Only if he lived with her would that then become an issue and there are very good, non financial reasons why he may not be.

This particular brand of bashing thread genuinely tickles me.

I find that those who seem to think mothers of disabled children are somehow to blame for the slow and steady deterioration of Britain — and the reason for the astronomical tax burden on the everyday working hero — are reminiscent of those who once proclaimed, “Well, it’s the Polish that are stealing all our jobs.”

And I’m convinced that some of them are still at the stage in their education where they haven’t yet graduated from using wax crayons.

They likely all read the same colour-illustrated copy of Ow to fix Costa Living, and uva stuff on ekernomiks.

I’ve known investigators to be much more thorough than this.

Advice shouldn’t be given based on those investigators not doing their job properly.

In law a council tax bill isn’t enough to prove non cohabitation.

Surely it would be other bills etc too?

I did see a thread about this where OP was told that making a cup of tea for her DP means the DWP would see them as living together. And that is clearly shite.

They've done their job perfectly well. It has nothing to do with how often you stay over. They know he stays all the time. But thenfact that he is named on his own tenancy and council tax means that officially, he lives elsewhere.

All they care about is that money is paid. This couple are paying twice so they don't care how they arrange their finances outside of that.

Agreed it’s not the time together but the financial situation.
Ithink it’s less problematic with us as everything is one claim. In the days of separate housing benefit and tax credits it was tricky keeping up with who was living where and paying what with two systems.

I know a couple who have done this. All three dc are quite severely autistic and wouldn’t accept her Dh moving in. They are ok with visits but couldn’t cope full time.
The couple are together when the DC are out with support workers or at their placement.
I see it as Mum putting the dc first while getting to live her life too rather than doing it due to benefits. I think they’d all rather not live like this but it’s what works for them

When your friend got married, her husband became legally obliged to support her as a non working person. This is what happens for other married couples when a spouse does not work. If they lived together, she would also still be able to claim DLA, carers allowance and child benefit, which at middle rate equates to about £900.00 a month plus any maintenance payments she receives for her children would be an addition to her income. This finance would be there to support her children. She is still free to earn £204.00 a month in some form.
In living apart, the tax payer is taking over her husbands legal financial responsibility for her as a married person. As a married unit, they should be pulling together financially and their finances are joint. They are actively not doing this and allowing the tax payer to take over and you are right OP, this is not on!

Tricky for who? Genuine claims ats should know where they live

Is he legally obliged to support her if married? Does that count for every married person

Yes, if you are living apart for work or caring purposes and not because of legal separation, you are still considered a couple.