Hello, not sure if this will help, but by getting married there is a relevant change in their situation I think.
When they were not married, the caselaw considers, for example, the 6 signposts the DWP always state are relevant to determining what is cohabitation (such as living in the same household, children, how they are viewed in public, etc.) Also of importance though can be the intentions behind the parties being in the same house eg being in same household as easier to care for her. Were the full written reasons for the overpayment decision issued? It might help to know these.
However, when they got married the legislative basis for the DWP's decision changes to simply: are they members of the same household?
This can include issues such as separate eating arrangements, no evidence of family life (see CPAG p754). But I think this is different to the former situation of cohabitation and I think is slightly easier for the DWP to prove as to prove it requires less justification. By this I mean a tribunal may not be able to take in to account all the circumstances of the case if all that needs to be shown is are they living in the same household (eg the carer relationship might not be relevant now they are married).
Also, I may be missing something, but I cant see why a violent ex-partner and daughter on a witness protection scheme, for all that that is a terrible siutation to be in, means they had to marry each other? I am not sure, however, that, whatever the reasons for the marriage, a tribunal could consider this as relevant, when the question they will ask is are they living in the same household. I can still see them asking why they got married though. If it can help towards showing they dont live in the same household, then it may be relevant. The focus of the arguments I think will need to be on showing a separate household.
Why I mention all of this is that I have tried an argument for a married couple where they had separated but she moved back in to help him due to his disability, but this notion of caring rather than a loving relationship failed at tribunal and at Commissioners because it was said such things are not important - only, do they share a household?
I must end by saying though that your case does not have the same facts as the one I had and the terms are not defined in the legislation, so obviously you can try and argue what you want. Good luck ![](images/wink.gif)
|