Help pls

[pinkhairmum]

If my partner who doesn’t live with me offered to start paying me like half of my bills for the 3-4 nights he stays here cos it’s closer to work, would UC have a problem with this? He doesn’t live with me and we won’t for a while because there’s no room but he wants to pay his bit for the time he is here, is this an issue or not?

Yes, it’s a change of circumstances

But he doesn’t live here…he just offered to help me out since he still uses gas electric etc whilst he stays here

It would be classed as a income , as would have to do a change of circumstances to reflect he’s staying over x amount per week and making a contribution towards things

uc will assess every case individually but if he’s staying 3/4 nights and making contributions he is effectively living with you in their eyes

It's semantics isn't it. You are trying to argue he doesn't live with you, but if that is the case why is he paying you. If he is paying you, he is covering costs incurred whilst he is. .... Living with you!

If you are getting extra income, which this is, then of course you should declare it. But I am sure most others wouldn't and if it's in cash, who would know?

So really, it is up to your conscience.

But he doesn’t live here, why wouldn’t he be able to do it just to be nice and pay towards what he uses when he stays here? If I stay at his mums and are her food and stuff I’d give her a little bit towards it because it’s extra they have accounted for when they did their food shop etc

I can literally prove he still lives at home and not with me too:/ he was literally just trying to be nice to help me out with what he uses when he’s here

How much would he give you?

But that’s not what you said. You said he wants to pay half my bills not contribute a little extra towards groceries.

He’s financially supporting you and staying 3 /4 nights a week which is the majority of the week. UC will see you as living together as a married couples and a joint claim would need to be made. Below is the link to the guidence that decision makers use. If you ever have a claim review likely you’ll be told to make a joint claim.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7575a740f0b6397f35e96f/adme4.pdf

My husband works away a lot and often spends less time in the house each week than your partner. My husband lives with me.

How can you ‘literally prove he still lives at home and not with me too’?

I’m confused, if there’s no room for him to live with you how is there room for him to stay 3/4 nights a week?

It is a change of circumstances so it's best to be upfront and let them know. I understand you saying it's not his permanent residence but its upto UC to decide if it affects your claim ultimately.

@pinkhairmum OP, the best thing to do is add a note to your UC journal with the information you've given us here and ask if you should report this as a change of circumstance. It's better to be safe than sorry - you wouldn't want to be the subject of a fraud investigation and have to repay a potentially large overpayment. Just check first.

Yeah, it is obvious you are trying to play the system. My husband works away every second week. Does that mean he dosen't live with me?
If there's no space for him to move in how is there space for 3 or 4 nights a week? Paying half your bills and contributing to groceries isn't just a little but to be kind. For all intents and purposes he is living there.

Under UC it wouldn't count as income as only those sources listed in the 2013 regs count and contributions to living expenses are not listed.

However, if somebody 'dobbed you in' as having a partner living with you might be in some trouble proving you're not living as a married couple even if he has somewhere else. More so if you spend time as his, your friends see you as a couple etc.

I see somebody upthread has posted a link to the DWP Advice for Decision Makers on this stuff. I use that fairly often to argue that couples who are estranged, but live together by force of circumstance, are not Living Together as a Married Couple (LTAMC).

Once you start sharing expenses proving you're not LTAMC is a seriously uphill battle. While sharing a bed/having sex is no longer a question they can ask eating together, sharing food and potentially doing his washing mean even without the money thing you're probably LTAMC.

Exactly. And if a claimant like OP isn't sure, the best way to find out for certain is to ask the DWP - not MN. I have a feeling OP wanted a MN chorus of "Oh yes, it's fine, crack on."

I wouldn't trust the DWP on this. They'll either err on the most restrictive interpretation or only answer in a formal context ie put the claim under review.

CA or another advice agency would be a better place to go.

Yes dont trust the DWP to advice on the benefit rules they are responsible for implementing. What ??!!! I admit individuals within the Dept may sometimes get things wrong but that also applies to people who work for CAB or similar.

He’s living with you at least half the time and would be paying you as if he was living there full time, so how would you prove he wasn’t living with you and just maintaining a second address?

Yes you need to tell them OP. Not sure why you’d risk falling on the wrong side & getting a big bill to repay.

If he pays half your bills you are risking difficulties with UC.

If, on the other hand, he was to give you a cash gift on a regular basis its unlikely there would be any problems so long as the bills in the place that he lives at were in his name.

@willowtree99 If I understand OP correctly he lives with his Mum.

CA would err on the side of caution if there is any doubt. If OP's BF is living with his mum there may be no household bills in his name at the address, which would be unhelpful, but he may have other evidence that his mum's address is his usual address (e.g. he's on the electoral roll there and his bank and/or employer have that address for him). I was an adviser at CA for 10 years and based purely on what OP's told us, I would be advising her to ask the DWP, via her UC journal, if she should declare a change of circumstance (and have her evidence ready if they say she should). Even if they put her claim under review, her payments wouldn't stop unless they deem she is co-habiting and should be making a joint claim. As a former adviser I would never advise a client not to declare, or at least ask the question, if that risked her falling foul of the rules and receiving an overpayment (and, even worse, being investigated for potential fraud). In the final analysis, it will be a DWP decision maker who decides whether or not OP should be replacing her single claim with a joint one - assuming she tells them, of course.

@AngelicKaty we have a slightly different understanding of advice but I agree telling OP not to report it would be badly wrong.

I'd say the consequences of reporting it, and in the UC context that would be as a change of circs are that in all probability you'd need a joint claim.

If you don't report it and the fact you've a man with you most nights of the week finds its way to DWP you'll have difficult questions to answer. If you answered those in a way DWP thought untruthful you could even be risking and interview under caution.

Advice is about explaining options and letting the client make a choice and not, even when the answer is blind man> galloping horse self evident it's best not to give advice in a 'you should (or need) to do this' format.

A note on the UC journal would effectively disclose the position, though in my opinion the OP really needs a joint claim so it should be disclosed anyway, and set them a trap.

Plus DWP, or at least UC, agents these days won't give answers where, in cases like this, the answer is anything other than (eg) declare it as a change of circs.

No we don't have different ideas about advice at all. Just as I was trained to do, I would absolutely give the client all options - and the benefits and risks of each - but I would make very clear the risk of not even asking the question of the DWP if there was any doubt at all whether their change of circumstance met the threshold for the DWP's definition of such (and I would ensure my case notes reflected this). Having a client accusing me of somehow not advising them of the risk, or how it could impact them, is not something I would like to experience (and, fortunately, never did).

@AngelicKaty OK, fair enough.

I guess my main point is I'd be reluctant to sign questions like the op's to DWP and certainly not without a thorough briefing first.