Help/Advice Needed

[Dav1eboy]

My New wife got a letter from Council to be interviewed under caution. I also received the same letter

 

We attended yesterday and basically they accused us of living together before we got married. Which by the way was not the case.During the interview they stated that I had changed my address on my employers E-HR system to my new wife's address in Dec 09. I freely admitted this happened but was only for Next of Kin / Pension rights reasons as she was expecting a child with me.When she moved into the property in question I had (and technically still have a tenancy in my name) but here it gets really complicated so please bear with me.

 

I agreed to take a post with my employer to work in the Northern Region of Scotland and thus allowed my sister to move into my property and take on responsibility for the bills etc. It then transpired that I wouldn't have to be away as often as anticipated but my job would still involve daily commute and often week long stays away from home. It was agreed with my sister that I would stay with her on 2/3 nights & 1 night with my mum when I was not away as I often spent 2 nights away in Newcastle visiting my other daughter.

 

Obviously this left me in a position where no utility/council tax bills are in my name except for my tenancy & mobile phone Bill. My bank statements go to my mums.

 

As my now new wife is self employed and on a week by week basis was never sure of the available money she would have I agreed to pay Direct Debits on her behalf (to gain the maximum rebate & avoid bank charges) for which she gave me back the money from her tax credit payments when I visited my child.

 

Basically what the Council Investigators have stated is they can't understand why we didn't just live together. I explained that this was a decision we had jointly taken and as there was no law which stated that we had to I really didn't see why they were asking. They then asked how I felt that my wife could run a house based on her income to which I replied that running a business means that every pound is a prisoner and she is an expert at budgeting.

 

I realise that I am rambling here so will summarise.We married on 14th September and I attempted to advise Council via electronic change of circumstance form that we were now living together - the system crashed.We filled in a new claim form in joint names but did not submit as we were then told we would have to vacate the house we now lived in due to landlord ill health.We successfully completed change of circumstance form on the day we got notification of IUC.We attended interview and answered question pretty truthfully (maybe I made a mistake but I told them I worked away most weeks). I did not lie about living with relatives.They told me that they had evidence I applied for car insurance at the address in question in May 2011 but nothing beforehand.

 

The claim is in my new wife's name and I am unsure whether they can obtain any further info from my employer with regards to where I was posted etc.We have done nothing wrong but are worried sick.Any thoughts / advice would be greatly appreciated.

Edited November 29, 2011 by Dav1eboy

[Messydesk]

I would absolutely hate to think I was supporting the council - I have no time for them at all - but I think if you have a wife who is expecting your child, the fact that you work away several nights a week does not mean you are not living with her. For the purposes of council tax benefit you would be considered as living there. However, its always tricky for them to prove their case. Have they made a decision that you could appeal against? They presumeably will. When they do ask for a statement of reasons - they should tell you that you can have this and see exactly what they are claiming to be your circumstances. If they are right you may just have to pay up. If they are wrong, go to Tribunal and see waht they can produce in the way of proof.

[Dav1eboy]

I would absolutely hate to think I was supporting the council - I have no time for them at all - but I think if you have a wife who is expecting your child, the fact that you work away several nights a week does not mean you are not living with her. For the purposes of council tax benefit you would be considered as living there. However, its always tricky for them to prove their case. Have they made a decision that you could appeal against? They presumeably will. When they do ask for a statement of reasons - they should tell you that you can have this and see exactly what they are claiming to be your circumstances. If they are right you may just have to pay up. If they are wrong, go to Tribunal and see waht they can produce in the way of proof.

 

Thanks for reply.No no decision has come through yet. We weren't married when she moved into the house and we didn't live together.I know that on my Civil Servant wages we would be entitled to something but for the 20 months she has lived there they are claiming we were living together. Even if I was the overpayment would be slightly over £2000 based on our entitlement as a married couple.Obviously I am not sure what action they are likely to take so I am worried for her. They did state that as the claim is not in my name it was very unlikely I would have any action against me

[Life-Goes-On]

What the council will look at is on the balance of probabilities (i.e. over 50% chance) what you living together before you married.

On the council list will be you changed your Next of Kin / Pension rights to name her (show more than a casual relationship), you got her pregnant, then you married her.

 

Looking at just that, it will be hard to claim you were not in a committed relationship.

Just because you're not living together in the same house, doesn't mean they don't class it as LTAMAW. (EG North sea oil workers)

 

IMHO

[Dav1eboy]

What the council will look at is on the balance of probabilities (i.e. over 50% chance) what you living together before you married.

On the council list will be you changed your Next of Kin / Pension rights to name her (show more than a casual relationship), you got her pregnant, then you married her.

 

Looking at just that, it will be hard to claim you were not in a committed relationship.

Just because you're not living together in the same house, doesn't mean they don't class it as LTAMAW. (EG North sea oil workers)

 

IMHO

 

I can see how they would view it that way. However what I failed to mention was that we for a period of around 5 months were not actually "in a relationship" and only decided to get back together when I was going back and forward to the house to see my little girl. At no point over the last 20 months did I move my stuff into the house and only did so upon return from honeymoon at the start of October.We told them this in interview but I can see it will probably not have done any good

[watchinginvestigation2011]

You need to have totally sperate finances and any single person needs to keep their adress protected as in do not allow another person to use your address as even then when not married and perhaps just a friend, you can get the accusation that you live together even if maliciously.

 

You married her, she is having your baby and you changed next of kin and pension, along with you saying you pay dds or bills was it on her behalf and she returns monies to you. That seems a partnership to me.

 

Often people think that if they make sure they have a tenancy in their name somewhere that they will be able to prove they are not partners as in above liklihood of for benefit purposes living together, it is not true.

 

Single claimants should not link finances and official records as in pensions etc.... to protect themselves if genuinely not together.

 

I think you genuinely may not consider yourselves a couple for benefit purposes, but seems that you are from what I read, however you have right to appeal etc......

[Dav1eboy]

You need to have totally sperate finances and any single person needs to keep their adress protected as in do not allow another person to use your address as even then when not married and perhaps just a friend, you can get the accusation that you live together even if maliciously.

 

You married her, she is having your baby and you changed next of kin and pension, along with you saying you pay dds or bills was it on her behalf and she returns monies to you. That seems a partnership to me.

 

Often people think that if they make sure they have a tenancy in their name somewhere that they will be able to prove they are not partners as in above liklihood of for benefit purposes living together, it is not true.

 

Single claimants should not link finances and official records as in pensions etc.... to protect themselves if genuinely not together.

 

I think you genuinely may not consider yourselves a couple for benefit purposes, but seems that you are from what I read, however you have right to appeal etc......

 

Thanks for that. I know they gave me the form what options are available to them. I have worked out that worst case scenario is an overpayment of around 2200 although she would vehemently dispute it on appeal. However is the likliehood a prosecution in this matter?

[Life-Goes-On]

Hard to say if they will prosecute, as the burden of proof is much higher.

If it's the first time, with that amount, could be just a penalty, but know one can say for sure. It mainly down to how much evidence they have, it does look they have have done their research on the case.

[Dav1eboy]

Hard to say if they will prosecute, as the burden of proof is much higher.

If it's the first time, with that amount, could be just a penalty, but know one can say for sure. It mainly down to how much evidence they have, it does look they have have done their research on the case.[/

 

Yeh it would appear that they have. To be honest if they turned round and gave her the penalty I would probably encourage her to accept just to get rid. However if they wanted to prosecute I think she would need to fight it tooth and nail considering that I haven't lived there and thought I was doing right thing by paying direct debits to keep her overheads at a minimun and getting the cash back. There was certainly never any intention to defraud.