We were all to shy say that we don’t know what “collusive separation” means.
I googled it and found some information on Taunton Deane Council’s web site about LTAHAW fraud. Collusive separation is defined on that site as a fraud involving a gfalse declaration to the effect that a couple have separated, when in reality they haven’t. Am I getting warm?
If so, there is no specific legislation. Lying about anything to do with benefits is really only a concern where it is done with a view to obtaining more benefit than you would be entitled to if you told the truth. Having a partner in itself does not reduce benefit – quite the opposite, you get a higher applicable amount. Therefore, collusive separation is only an issue where the concealed partner has income or capital that would decrease or remove entitlement to benefit. It’s a function of the means test. So the legislation you are after is the regular stuff on aggregation. In particular, s136(1) of the Conts and Bens Act provides for aggregation of the income and capital of the “family”; s137 defines “family”, and from that definition you will be cross-referred to other definitions, also in s137, of “couple”. Your task is to demonstrate the following:
– that your claimant and his/her partner are in reality living as a couple in a way that satisfies s137
– they are therefore a family
– their income and capital should therefore be aggregated
– if one of them has got lots of income and capital, their benefit should be reduced/stopped
If your claimant, who purports to be single, is on a passport benefit, it gets more complicated. But am I on the right lines up to here?