CCM15380 - Undisclosed Partners: Evidence in the Standard Intelligence Package
The Standard Intelligence Package (SIP) will have identified
another adult at the claimant’s address and the Claimant
Compliance Risk Officer (CCRO) will have considered whether this is
a family member. However, the presence of another adult at the
claimant’s address does not, in itself, mean they are living
together as husband and wife (LTAHAW) or living together as civil
partners (LTACP).
Where the claimant replies to your opening letter you will
consider the evidence as shown in
CCM15040. Where there is no reply you
will need to review the information held in the SIP to decide
whether you are in a position to make a decision or whether you
need to make a formal request for the information. Each case must
be carefully considered on its own merit but the following would
normally be sufficient evidence on which to make a decision.
- Both at the same previous address
If the claimant and the suspected partner were both previously at another address and are both now at a new address then, unless they are a recently separated couple (see CCM15390), in the absence of any other information, it is not unreasonable to conclude they are LTAHAW or LTACP. Not only are they at the same address but there is some stability in their arrangements. It would be unusual (but not impossible) for a lodger to move with their landlord.
- Evidence of joint loans
Whilst two independent people who share a property might apply for a joint loan for example for home improvements, this does point towards a degree of financial interdependence because they will each be liable to repay the debt if the other one defaults. In the absence of any other information, unless they are a recently separated couple, (see CCM15390), it is not unreasonable to conclude they are LTAHAW or LTACP. Not only are they at the same address but there is some element of financial interdependence and stability in their arrangements.
- Youngest child has the same surname as the suspected partner
In modern relationships many parents do not live together as a couple but it would be unusual for a couple to live at the same address with their child (or a child which has been given the suspected partner’s surname) and not be LTAHAW or LTACP. So unless they are a recently separated couple, (see CCM15390) it is not unreasonable to conclude they are LTAHAW or LTACP. Not only are they at the same address but they have a child which points to an element of stability.
- Evidence of joint investments
It would be unusual for two independent people to have joint investments such as a deposit account. In the absence of any other information, unless they are a recently separated couple, (see CCM15390), it is not unreasonable to conclude they are LTAHAW or LTACP. Not only are they at the same address but there is some element of financial interaction and stability in their arrangements.
- Evidence of a joint claim to a DWP benefit or joint maintenance
statement
Evidence of a joint claim to a DWP benefit or a joint statement
for CSA (or CEMA) purposes is not conclusive evidence on which to
base a decision. It may be that the claim to the DWP benefit or the
information provided regarding a maintenance claim is the false
statement. However, if other evidence points to LTAHAW or LTACP
then a joint claim to a DWP benefit or statement provided regarding
maintenance can be taken into account. In the absence of any other
information, unless they are a recently separated couple (see
CCM15390), it is not unreasonable to
conclude they are LTAHAW or LTACP. Not only are they at the same
address but there is some evidence of stability and they have
represented themselves as part of a couple.
Although in would not be unreasonable to conclude LTAHAW and
LTACP in the five situations shown above, you must be confident the
evidence is correct as you may be called upon to defend a decision
before an appeal tribunal.
