Social Welfare Rules Cohabiting

Habata

Hi, I'm just curious how the department of social protection justifies denying payments if someone lives with a girlfriend or boyfriend.

If the same people shared with an independent party they wouldn't be assessed that way.

It seems totally mad.

The state doesn't recognise the relationship, or confere any benefit. And if there's no financial relationship. I just can't see how they are able to justify it. Is this something that the courts have ever looked at?

If they put a five or ten year minimum, and financial interests were intertwined I could understand. But as it currently stands it's madness.

Am I tilting at windmills?

wench

They are treating you the same as they would a married couple.
So you get the benefit of an increase for a dependent partner but also the downside of joint assessment of your means.

Peregrinus

Habata wrote: »

Hi, I'm just curious how the department of social protection justifies denying payments if someone lives with a girlfriend or boyfriend.

If the same people shared with an independent party they wouldn't be assessed that way.

It seems totally mad.

The state doesn't recognise the relationship, or confere any benefit.

Sure they do. You've just pointed to a way in which they recognise it. And they recognise it in other ways too, as you may discover if the relationship breaks up acrimoniously. Or if, say, your partner was a non-EU national and needed a visa.

Habata wrote: »

And if there's no financial relationship. I just can't see how they are able to justify it.

There's always some degree of financial interdependence with cohabiting couples. Either they are sharing the rent (or other cost of accommodation), which is financially beneficial to both of them, or one of them is providing the other with free accommodation.

Similarly with other domestic expenses - utilities, grocery bills, etc. It costs less for two people to maintain a common household than it does for each of them to maintain a separate household. Thus the relationship - or its termination - will have financially signficant effects for both of them.

Habata wrote: »

If they put a five or ten year minimum, and financial interests were intertwined I could understand. But as it currently stands it's madness.

There are various "threshold" tests that they apply in different circumstances to judge the relevance of non-marital relationships for adminsitrative purposes. On relationship breakdown, for example, you wouldn't be treated in the same way as a marreid couple unless you had been together for (I think) two years, or had had a child together. But when it comes to something like social welfare, that's supposed to be a response to your current circumstances, so all that matters is whether you are currently in a conjugal relationship that is relevant to an assessment of your situation.

Habata

There's always some degree of financial interdependence with cohabiting couples. Either they are sharing the rent (or other cost of accommodation), which is financially beneficial to both of them, or one of them is providing the other with free accommodation.

It's accessed on income not costs though. If one is living with a different house mate then they're accessed totally differently m

If there's no income sharing or extra financial benefit then how is it justified?

Sure they do. You've just pointed to a way in which they recognise it. And they recognise it in other ways too, as you may discover if the relationship breaks up acrimoniously. Or if, say, your partner was a non-EU national and needed a visa.

Is there any beneficial benefits by the state? We can't share credits. It seems a totally negative recognition by the state.

Losty Dublin

If the gist of your query here is to ask why don't you get a payment equivalent to two single persons, it should be pointed out that you and your partner have applied as a couple. Dependent spouses are awarded a payment as an ADA, adult dependent.

You and your partner have every right to make two separate claims if you feel it will be of benefit to you in some way or shape or form. Also, it should be pointed out that in general, an adult dependent can not be on two live claims and expect to see a payment on both claims. Also, an adult dependent can be subject to a means tests for some schemes so any other asset/s or income/s will be taken into account when rating your own claim.

Habata

No just a single claim that was denied because my partner is working even though we don't share finances and they're not supporting me.

ahnowbrowncow

They have a point, if their social welfare claim is being denied due to their partner working and being supposedly dependent on them, their partner should be able to avail the personal tax credit that is going unused otherwise it's hypocritical by the Governemnt departments.

messrs

Habata wrote: »

No just a single claim that was denied because my partner is working even though we don't share finances and they're not supporting me.

Same happened a girl in my job. she was means tested based on her boyfriend had to send in his bank statements and everything - even though they both pay tax as single people and neither are a defendant of the other

MLC_biker

Habata wrote: »

No just a single claim that was denied because my partner is working even though we don't share finances and they're not supporting me.

If you live together and you are not working, what are you living on? That implies financial dependence and probably how SW view 'household' income.

Mrs OBumble

MLC_biker wrote: »

If you live together and you are not working, what are you living on? That implies financial dependence and probably how SW view 'household' income.

From the moment you lose your job, you are living on savings.