Originally Posted by ShaShaBear
. Because a single family unit has nothing to do with sex as you repeatedly put it, but the presence of more than one individual with an income capable of supporting all members of the household. Naturally, they would assume that two people with a relationship that decide to share a home would also share finances to some extent. Just like if you moved in with your parents, you would be assessed on their earnings because they also have the capability to support you by sharing finances. And I presume you don't have sex with your parents?
And what if the assumptions are wrong?
There's all sorts of reasons to move into the same house. It doesn't mean the people are a family unit.
What if the earner isn't supporting the other?
Imo it's mad to assume that two people that are going out are supporting each other. Usually that's only something that happens after many years.
It's a weird flex by the government. Double standards regarding the tax credits. And they can make assumptions without having to back it up. And i don't understand how and why the criteria for a qualifying adult doesn't apply to determining a family unit?
My whole point about this is that there's different levels of "cohabitation". And it should be treated differently. I'm out of work and a difficult time, I'm doing my best to get a job, I've paid my taxes and I'm denied support for unreasonable reasons.
But if I had a different housemate everything would be fine. Which is why I asked if anyone had ever appealed in a similar situation.
I know people here don't care, and think I'm trying to convince them of my situation. I'm trying to understand the logic and justification. The replies of "that's just how it is" don't do much.