So why is she moaning about moving out so its not Aarons place if shes going to move out to have photos of Aaron up? Makes no sense.
Chloe todd #14 she's engaged, we’re enraged, how much longer will her boys be caged?
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Chloe Todd Threads
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Iv no idea I'm just repeating what she said because I watched the live
. They were talking about the photos already up in the currently livingroom. I'd imagine if they moved she wouldn't be like oh holly let's put a picture of Arron in the livingroom 
I get that he’s the dad but surely they could put nice photos in the boys room not on the wall in the living room to always feature in her literal tit talk.
My children have photos of their dad in their bedroom not in my lounge. Just weird
I second this. Definitely wouldn’t have my ex on the wall but my kids have a photo of them all with him in their room.
And I recon she just doesn’t want to declare holly living there with benefits so not saying they’re living together.
The thing is if she is claiming UC then its completely unfair.
Shes already at a financial advantage wether Holly lives their or not because
1) won't have the standard costs that you would solely be responsible for if you was a genuine single parent ( bus fare ect since holly drives )
2) food shopping
3) disposable income with being able to afford the luxury of days out with the kids.
Huge difference with claiming UC being a single person and still being solely responsible for all bills, compared to being engaged and having someone pay for every day living expenses that you can never track ( which is clear to see is happening )
Unfair but I dont think anything will come from her being reported at all.
Shes clearly at a financial advantage compared to many single parents just by having holly ferrying her about, which would come at a cost for a standard person.
If Holly is living with her, she would have to be on the tenancy agreement which would mean she would lose her council tax reduction (25%) and she would have to update her UC to say that someone has moved in which would mean her UC could be completely wipes out since child benefit is included in the cap.
Shes already at a financial advantage wether Holly lives their or not because
1) won't have the standard costs that you would solely be responsible for if you was a genuine single parent ( bus fare ect since holly drives )
2) food shopping
3) disposable income with being able to afford the luxury of days out with the kids.
Huge difference with claiming UC being a single person and still being solely responsible for all bills, compared to being engaged and having someone pay for every day living expenses that you can never track ( which is clear to see is happening )
Unfair but I dont think anything will come from her being reported at all.
Shes clearly at a financial advantage compared to many single parents just by having holly ferrying her about, which would come at a cost for a standard person.
If Holly is living with her, she would have to be on the tenancy agreement which would mean she would lose her council tax reduction (25%) and she would have to update her UC to say that someone has moved in which would mean her UC could be completely wipes out since child benefit is included in the cap.
Didnt it change where someone can live with you and aslong as they dont contribute to the bills then its not an issue saying that i think shes moved in and shes just saying shes not so no one can report her
She doesn’t help herself though coz she sits on lives and says she’s got about £800 coming in, in the next few weeks through her shares tit she does. Bet she doesn’t declare it though 
No because there’s no evidence. If they’re on the agreement and there’s proof they’re working then they cut your benefits
The thing is if it goes into her bank eventually she’ll get caughtShe doesn’t help herself though coz she sits on lives and says she’s got about £800 coming in, in the next few weeks through her shares tit she does. Bet she doesn’t declare it though
Karma will get her. For this and so so much more, I’m just waiting, with my popcorn, for it to all blow up 
i think someone said you have to put your NI number in on that shares site. Good luck to her hiding that one.She doesn’t help herself though coz she sits on lives and says she’s got about £800 coming in, in the next few weeks through her shares tit she does. Bet she doesn’t declare it though
Oh do you
well she’s more bloody stupid than I thought then. 
I’m sure she said she gets like £3 everytime someone signs up and she’s had close to 300 but I may have misheard. She deffo said a large sum of money soon though through it coz she’s getting the boys a tv, a new tablet and Xmas presents with itThose kids need zoo passes or something not electronic devices to be sitting on. Their brains must be mushOh do you
There’s no limit on how many nights you can have a guest. A lot of people say like 3 nights etc but it’s not the case. So technically someone can stay over every night and would be “living there” but as long as they don’t financially contribute to the household then it’s fine. It can get sticky very easily though as even buying a takeaway could be seen as contributing…
Yh i get you i guess thats why shes just saying she doesnt live there when she clearly does
This is what I was sent in regards to how they class as someone commuting fraud...
You have to understand the fraud that is being (or not being) committed.
Living Together As Husband & Wife (LTAHW) investigations are looking at a fraud where one party claims state benefit as a SINGLE parent. The state gives the SINGLE parent an amount of money to live on because they are looking after a young child and are unable to earn an income to support themselves and their child/ren. Or , are on a really low wage and tax credits. It is this low income that qualifies for housing benefit.
In a LTAHW investigation we are looking at the 'conditions' of entitlement. Is this person a single parent, is the money available to support the claimant (and a child) EXACTLY as they have declared. ? Or is the claimant at a financial advantage to someone who does not have a partner.
Here are a three examples. Hopefully it will explain why the 3 night rule is a myth.
1. Sarah has 2 children under 5 and lives alone. Baby is a year old and cannot Work. She receives £150 a week and all her rent paid. She doesn't have a partner. She must pay all her costs from £150.
2. Susan has 2 children under 5. She is also unable to work. She also gets £150 a week and her rent paid. She has a partner who stays over 4 days a week. He comes over in the evening when the kids are in bed and leaves in the morning. They don't go out as Susan can't afford a babysitter. Her boyfriend has his own flat and own household expenses. He brings over a bottle of wine and takeaway once or twice a week. He makes no other contribution to the household.
3. Louise lives with her two children, doesn't work and also receives £150 a week and all rent. Her boyfriend stays over at weekends only as he works away and is 'registered' at his mums. (His post goes there and he pays Council tax there.) He takes Louise and the kids shopping on Saturday mornings. They go swimming together as a family in the afternoon. He has a car and both Louise and partner drive the car when he is staying. Louise's partner likes to watch sky sports , so he pays for the tv/telephone Wi-fi package. It's all in her name from before they met, so he transfers her the cost every month. Louise doesn't pay all her household costs from her benefit. Her food, phone and entertainment are funded by her partner. Her personal costs to run her home are substantially lower than Susan and Sarah's. She still has a few bills to pay but pays no food /phone entertainment, reduced travel costs BECAUSE she has a partner. All costs that she would have to pay if he wasn't there.
Sarah and Susan are not committing fraud. Louise is.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with 'how many nights'."
You have to understand the fraud that is being (or not being) committed.
Living Together As Husband & Wife (LTAHW) investigations are looking at a fraud where one party claims state benefit as a SINGLE parent. The state gives the SINGLE parent an amount of money to live on because they are looking after a young child and are unable to earn an income to support themselves and their child/ren. Or , are on a really low wage and tax credits. It is this low income that qualifies for housing benefit.
In a LTAHW investigation we are looking at the 'conditions' of entitlement. Is this person a single parent, is the money available to support the claimant (and a child) EXACTLY as they have declared. ? Or is the claimant at a financial advantage to someone who does not have a partner.
Here are a three examples. Hopefully it will explain why the 3 night rule is a myth.
1. Sarah has 2 children under 5 and lives alone. Baby is a year old and cannot Work. She receives £150 a week and all her rent paid. She doesn't have a partner. She must pay all her costs from £150.
2. Susan has 2 children under 5. She is also unable to work. She also gets £150 a week and her rent paid. She has a partner who stays over 4 days a week. He comes over in the evening when the kids are in bed and leaves in the morning. They don't go out as Susan can't afford a babysitter. Her boyfriend has his own flat and own household expenses. He brings over a bottle of wine and takeaway once or twice a week. He makes no other contribution to the household.
3. Louise lives with her two children, doesn't work and also receives £150 a week and all rent. Her boyfriend stays over at weekends only as he works away and is 'registered' at his mums. (His post goes there and he pays Council tax there.) He takes Louise and the kids shopping on Saturday mornings. They go swimming together as a family in the afternoon. He has a car and both Louise and partner drive the car when he is staying. Louise's partner likes to watch sky sports , so he pays for the tv/telephone Wi-fi package. It's all in her name from before they met, so he transfers her the cost every month. Louise doesn't pay all her household costs from her benefit. Her food, phone and entertainment are funded by her partner. Her personal costs to run her home are substantially lower than Susan and Sarah's. She still has a few bills to pay but pays no food /phone entertainment, reduced travel costs BECAUSE she has a partner. All costs that she would have to pay if he wasn't there.
Sarah and Susan are not committing fraud. Louise is.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with 'how many nights'."
Shocked a worldwide pandemic has been worldwide?
Attachments
- Status