# Job Seekers Predicament- cohabiting but not really



## prancer888 (17 Jul 2013)

So here is my story---

I am a qualified teacher but semi unemployed (substitute). I was in a long term relationship and we were living together for a year. During this time his employment was terminated (contract break) twice and he had to sign on. I was receiving the casual job seekers and did not tell them we were living together so I could be independent- we dont have any joint accounts or anything and I paid all the bills in the rental house. When he signed on he claimed the dole at that address but when he was taken back to work, I was somehow means tested against his earnings and lost my payments. Things got a bit awkward after this as his wages although over the means test couldnt sustain two of us (i didnt want to be dependent on him) and our bills so I reapplied and told them we had broken up and he had moved out. The SWI came twice to the house and was satisfied but shortly after this I fell pregnant (havent told SW as baby die in August do didnt affect work). We broke up and my parents ended up buying me a very cheap house (ex bank) that I now live in so I could bring baby up comfortably without rent. He decided he wants to help me raise the baby and has offered to pay my parents half the amount for the house so that he can "provide for his child" and move in with us. This would be fine but if he moved back in with me would I lose my allowance even though we wouldnt be in a relationship or sharing bills etc? I would love for him to be able to co parent (we are still great friends) but it would probably mean me losing my independence again- how can he live here and me still get my allowance (its not that much i work 2 days a week).

My best friend has a baby and is claiming while living with her partner but they get back to education and another friend has been living with her boyf for 6 years (hes in fulltime employment and she isnt but gets full dole) and just wondering how are they not being means assessed against their partners? 

I really need to maintain my independence until i can get back teaching and sign off- i worked for two years straight but the budget cuts led to me being let go- last in etc! 

Really need help on this- I havent claimed any other benefit for being pregnant etc and have worked every day i got as well as applied for countless  jobs. I cant have my allowance taken again unless I tell SW I'm living with my parents (over 25) so my payment could be sent there. I'm so unsure and listening to a million views on this. 

Someone please give me advice.


----------



## ironman (17 Jul 2013)

prancer888 said:


> So here is my story---
> I was receiving the casual job seekers and did not tell them we were living together so I could be independent- .



You did not tell them so you could get more money.  You made a fraudulent claim.

*


prancer888 said:



			so I reapplied and told them we had broken up and he had moved out.
		
Click to expand...

*
Again you made a fraudulent claim.



> *My best friend has a baby and is claiming while living with her partner but they get back to education and another friend has been living with her boyf for 6 years (hes in fulltime employment and she isnt but gets full dole) and just wondering how are they not being means assessed against their partners*?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## partnership (17 Jul 2013)

I understand the need for independence and the way the system is structured does lend itself to people doing this.  However for yourself you would be better off staying living on your own, maybe see about lone parents rather than job seekers. If he moves in your payment will be affected and if you lie about where you are living it will come back to bite you or your boyfriend would have something he could hold over you if things go wrong.  He can help parent while living somewhere else.  He can have the baby to stay with him.  If he is receiving rent allowance as the child grows they will allow extra if he needs a 2 bedroomed house for the child to stay over.  As a single parent you can also claim an extra tax credit which would be useful when you return to work full time.  It really is not worth it in the long term.  As a teacher as well you need to be a role model for people.


----------



## mandelbrot (17 Jul 2013)

ironman said:


> You did not tell them so you could get more money. You made a fraudulent claim.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## peteb (17 Jul 2013)

Maybe people should take co-habitting more seriously so.  I'm with Ironman on this one.  It doesn't make a difference what the fundamental problem with our welfare system is - its still a fraudulent claim.


----------



## Sunny (17 Jul 2013)

peteb said:


> Maybe people should take co-habitting more seriously so.  I'm with Ironman on this one.  It doesn't make a difference what the fundamental problem with our welfare system is - its still a fraudulent claim.



So why doesn't the State take it seriously and give co-habitting couples the same tax treatment as married people? Not defending fraudulent claims but it is an anomaly in the system. Especially these days where plenty of couples break up but are stuck living together in negative equity houses. Are these people not entitled to be treated as individuals?


----------



## mandelbrot (17 Jul 2013)

peteb said:


> Maybe people should take co-habitting more seriously so.


 
I was at a wedding last weekend, of 2 good friends of mine.

They would have been friends, within the same circles of friends, in a small town for many years going back to our childhood.

When she came back from college in the UK in her mid-20s in 2007/08 she didn't want to move back in with her parents, and he had just bought a house in the town at silly money, so he took her in as a lodger. No funny business, genuine rent-a-room situation.

At some point that no-one but the 2 of them knows, and there was much hilarity about this during the wedding speeches, things blossomed into something more than friendship...

So can you tell me, at what point did they become cohabitants in such a way as to disqualify either from their social welfare entitlements as an individual, or how you can reasonably quantify such a thing? They're married now though, so I hope that's serious enough for you Pete.



peteb said:


> I'm with Ironman on this one. It doesn't make a difference what the fundamental problem with our welfare system is - its still a fraudulent claim.


And just to be clear, I never condoned a fraudulent claim, but I think the rules of the system are stupid and don't recognise modern reality.


----------



## peteb (17 Jul 2013)

No one is discussing the flaws of our welfare system.  The OP came in asking how she could manipulate her system to work around the existing criteria.  

She has a house that she lives in paying no rent.  If her ex can afford to pay for half the house he can afford to pay maintenance for his child.  She gets childrens allowance and whatever else.  I'm sure the situation is manageable.  

My wife is unemployed.  We have a five month old baby.  We don't have any spare cash after the bills and mortgage and expenses are met.  So someone tell me how I can get some extra payments so!   **rolls eyes**


----------



## SarahMc (17 Jul 2013)

SW Guidelines are quite clear, cohabitation involves 2 adults living together in a committed and intimate relationship.
If you are no longer in such a relationship with this man, I think you would be nuts to allow him purchase half the house, get out of paying maintenance and move him in with you. That's a heap of trouble there.


----------



## Sunny (17 Jul 2013)

SarahMc said:


> SW Guidelines are quite clear, cohabitation involves 2 adults living together in a committed and intimate relationship.
> If you are no longer in such a relationship with this man, I think you would be nuts to allow him purchase half the house, get out of paying maintenance and move him in with you. That's a heap of trouble there.



What's intimate? Separate bedrooms with the occasional booty call? What's committed? If I go out and cheat or we have an open relationship, does that mean we are individuals? The rules are hardly clear or fair.

I agree with your second point though. Why does he want to buy part of the house? Just pay maintenance.


----------



## SarahMc (18 Jul 2013)

Sunny, operational guidelines are here
http://www.welfare.ie/en/Pages/Cohabitation.aspx#3


----------



## Joe_90 (18 Jul 2013)

Leave aside the welfare implications.

What are the chances of a reconciliation with your ex.  How are you or him going to move on with your lives living in the same house.


----------



## Janet (18 Jul 2013)

prancer888 said:


> ... my parents ended up buying me a very cheap house (ex bank) that I now live in so I could bring baby up comfortably without rent. He decided he wants to help me raise the baby and has offered to pay my parents half the amount for the house so that he can "provide for his child" and move in with us. This would be fine ...



Forget about your SW entitlements and all that and just concentrate on this bit for a minute. If your independence is important to you (and I do think that as a single mother, independence, particularly in relation to finanical security, should be extremely important to you), then him buying half the house is anything _but _fine. 

If he wants to move in so that he can support you better in terms of co-parenting then do it on a rental basis, i.e. he rents a room in the house (separate from him paying maintenance). You'll probably have slightly more complicated finances for joint expenses like food than most people who are "just" sharing a house but keeping it on a slightly less intimate level will probably work out better in general.

You are going to be a mother so it's time to put away the emotional and sentimental side of things for a while and first make the financial decisions that will provide for your child. If you need any encouragement to dissuade you from letting him buy half of your house, have a read through the many, many, many threads on here regarding couples and friends who have broken up (some amicably, some not) but are still tethered together financially because of having bought property together.


----------

