Qualified Cohabitant definition.

Digital Society

Let's say a couple with 2 kids break up but the woman doesn't leave house as she can't afford to rent and no space in parents. Man Is happy to let her stay.

Is she still a qualified cohabitant?

It seems to state that they must be in an intimate relationship and live there as a couple for 2 years immediately before the seperation.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lifeandtimes

Fred Swanson wrote: »

The main problems come in convincing a Social Welfare inspector that such arrangements exist. It is automatically assumed there is intimate relations.

Actually I was always under the impression it's the other way around?

Social welfare have no way to prove it's an intimate relationship, I mean they can hardly hide in the cupboards and wait to see if the two people sleep together.

Like any court system the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove it, not the defendant to disprove the accusations

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lifeandtimes

Fred Swanson wrote: »

With the SW the opposite is the case. You are assumed to be in intimate relations, and you have to prove otherwise. That is my experience of dealing with them.

Yes assumed but not proven.

I've experienced the accusations of Facebook photos being pulled of people who aren't in a relationship together but living together and in photos together. They accusation is they are in a relationship, they denied this and as it can't be proven other wise it was let go.

Like any good detective they will do their best to try and scare the truth out (if that's the case) but again they need to prove it.

If it was to go to a court for say benifit fraud or somethinf similar a judge will ask the SW for evidence confirming these two people were in an intimate relationship and not say living together after a split due to financial difficulties and they wouldn't be able to do, as like i said they dont have proof they are actually intimate

Peregrinus

To be "cohabitants" for the purposes of the legislation, the relationship has to be "intimate and committed", but it does not have to be sexual. ("A relationship does not cease to be an intimate relationship for the purpose of this section merely because it is no longer sexual in nature").

In this hypothetical, case, the couple are sharing a home with one another and with the two children they have conceived together and are parenting together. Presumably, they are committed to co-parenting their children, so this is a committed relationship. The fact that they are free to date others (and may in fact be dating others) isn't decisive; there's no requirement that a qualified cohabitant relationship has to be exclusive.

Digital Society

Peregrinus wrote: »

To be "cohabitants" for the purposes of the legislation, the relationship has to be "intimate and committed", but it does not have to be sexual. ("A relationship does not cease to be an intimate relationship for the purpose of this section merely because it is no longer sexual in nature").

In this hypothetical, case, the couple are sharing a home with one another and with the two children they have conceived together and are parenting together. Presumably, they are committed to co-parenting their children, so this is a committed relationship. The fact that they are free to date others (and may in fact be dating others) isn't decisive; there's no requirement that a qualified cohabitant relationship has to be exclusive.

What if she was to move out of the property for a few months? Renting another property.

Peregrinus

Then she wouldn't be a cohabitant. However, if she were to move back in . . .