Forum Home → Discussion → Access to justice and advice sector issues → Thread
LTAHAW - How low can the DWP go to establish a link???
My client and his wife live separately and financially independant of each other.
We went to appeal and it was found by the 1st Tier Tribunal that my client should be treated as a single person.
The DWP did not challenge the decision.
Instead they sent my client a letter, see attached.
We are currently waiting for the DWP to reply to our response that my client recieves no financial assistence from his partner.
In 22 yrs of advising in WR’s I have never come across this immoral and appalling approach.
My client is and has been in Wythenshawe Cystic fibrosis unit and has developed pancreatic copmlications, throughtout this whole affair.
I have removed letter to edit out client details!!
[ Edited: 4 Jul 2014 at 03:08 pm by MACVEE ]
This is a standard letter asking if there are any ‘liable relative’ payments. In my experience it is normal for a liable relative to recieve these. As an aside I think you should remove the personal details from the letter.
Hi,
The letter is specific in that it is directed to my clients wife not regarding ‘Liable relative’ payments.
The letter requests whether his wife is assisting her husband with finacial support and if not why not, with the added incentive of a possible prosecution in the Mags courts.
there has always been a ‘liability to maintain’ in social security law. See Social Security Administration Act s105, 106 and 78(6)(d).
In the ‘old days’ before the CSA every local Income Support office (remember them) had a ‘liable relatives section’ that would pursue payments - that included from an ‘absent’ spouse as well as the ‘absent’ parent of a child.
Maybe DWP are starting to use this power again?
Don’t doubt its been around a while but in 22 years have never come across this tactic.
Main reason for posting was to highlight that this is a particularly distaste tact by the DWP to avoid paying I/S to someone even after a successful appeal.
Whilst i understand the principal of “failure to maintain” in the context of absent partners and/or absent parents, for the DWP to pursue someone who is recieving palliative care>
There have been 2 periods in the past three decades where DWP in its many forms has fallen back on this legislation. It’s a cyclical thing I guess. The first was in the late 80s and the second was in the early 90s and was specifically around the introduction of Care In The Community and the switching of care costs from them to LAs. It’s easy enough to argue against and once it gets the oxygen of publicity it tends to die down again. Generally speaking though, when it comes into play, it’s not considered off limits in any circumstances.
Afraid my capacity to be outraged is currently on “mute”.
Just got an email from a very distressed ex schoolmate who claims carers and income support as a single person
Her partner, who has his own place, bills, council tax, rent book etc stays over twice a week
DWP “compliance” officer mercilessly bullied her by saying “you get your 45 quid a week income support from the government for 7 days support, not 5. Either he doesnt stay over EVER or you close your claim and get him to keep you”
He then graciously said that on this occasion he wouldnt proceed further by passing her claim to the fraud squad. Nice chap!
Im sure that if she was in breach of income support rules by him staying over 2 nights a week they would be seeking to recover from this disgusting drain on our countries finances!
He is in no way part of her household for benefit purposes and i told her to tell them that in future
well i missed the original letter that OP put up and then rightly removed.
however, in my view - if DWP are prepared to say that people are LTAHAW with people they themselves accept live at a different address - which they often try, i’ve repped 2 on those facts, one to UT - then frankly, i’m not surprised…
Just got an email from a very distressed ex schoolmate who claims carers and income support as a single person
Her partner, who has his own place, bills, council tax, rent book etc stays over twice a week
To be fair; if she is referring to someone as her ‘partner’ then she can expect to have some attention.
There is nothing in the word “partner” which implies that people are living together, is there?
Yes!
Not necessarily…I am very happily not living with my partner!
This is one of those awkward things where the use of a word changes over time. Partner has been used for a long time to refer to a sort of common law spouse and this is the sense in which it is used on claim forms etc. However it seems to be becoming much more common to use the word to refer to a long term boyfriend / girlfriend who you don’t live with probably because the words boyfriend or girlfriend sound a bit temporary for what seems to be an increasingly common arrangement of people having a long term or permanent monogamous relationship but not tying the knot or shacking up. Partner has a sense of commitment with it so I think that is why it is being adopted. I agree with Gareth though that people on benefits shouldn’t use the word that way - the meaning may be changing but I think it is asking for trouble.
Someone told me about a party many years ago at which he introduced his ‘partner’ to a group of people causing a bit of a stir as people began to discuss how they had never realised he was gay - he then had to clarify that it was his business partner.
It’s more than a term used on claim forms.
For example, from the Universal Credit regulations defining meaning:
““partner” means (except in regulation 77) the other member of a couple”
It’s more than a term used on claim forms.
For example, from the Universal Credit regulations defining meaning:
““partner” means (except in regulation 77) the other member of a couple”
Is “couple” defined?
Couples
3.—(1) This regulation makes provision in relation to couples, including cases where both
members of a couple may be entitled to universal credit jointly without each of them meeting all the basic conditions referred to in section 4 of the Act (see paragraph (2)) and cases where a person whose partner does not meet all the basic conditions may make a claim as a single person (see paragraph (3)).
(2) A couple may be entitled to universal credit as joint claimants where—
(a) one member does not meet the basic condition in section 4(1)(b) (under the qualifying
age for state pension credit) if the other member does meet that condition; or
(b) one member does not meet the basic condition in section 4(1)(d) (not receiving
education) and is not excepted from that condition if the other member does meet that
condition or is excepted from it.
(3) A person who is a member of a couple may make a claim as a single person if the other
member of the couple—
(a) does not meet the basic condition in section 4(1)(a) (at least 18 years old) and is not a
person in respect of whom the minimum age specified in regulation 8 applies;
(b) does not meet the basic condition in section 4(1)(c) (in Great Britain);
(c) is a prisoner; or
(d) is a person other than a prisoner in respect of whom entitlement does not arise by virtue
of regulation 19 (restrictions on entitlement),
and regulations 18 (capital limit), 36 (amount of elements) and 22 (deduction of income and work
allowance) provide for the calculation of the award in such cases.
(4) Where two people are parties to a polygamous marriage, the fact that they are husband and
wife is to be disregarded if—
(a) one of them is a party to an earlier marriage that still subsists; and
(b) the other party to that earlier marriage is living in the same household,
and, accordingly, the person who is not a party to the earlier marriage may make a claim for
universal credit as a single person.
(5) In paragraph (4) “polygamous marriage” means a marriage during which a party to it is
married to more than one person and which took place under the laws of a country which permits polygamy.
(6) Where the claimant is a member of a couple, and the other member is temporarily absent from the claimant’s household, they cease to be treated as a couple if that absence is expected to exceed, or does exceed, 6 months.
(ps. Reg. 77 is about partners in a company)