Can anyone help! I have a cohab appeal coming up where the client is the father of his alledged partners children. To make matters worse, in the interview transcript it is stated that the father is unknown and on the next page is a letter from the CSA stating that he is the father!

My client maintains that he was never actually asked about who the father of the children were! I am sure that there is some case law about this. I.E even though there has been a past relation and shared children etc it does not neccessary mean that they are LTAHAW.

Just a long shot but does anyone know if this decsion or any other helpfull one exists!

thanks

Laura

You are right - there is a lot more to cohabiting than shared children. Signposts are
Do you live in the same household?
Do you have a sexual relationship?
What are your financial arrangements?
Is your relationship stable?
Do you have children?
How do you appear in public?

See CPAG p799 for more. Most useful evidence is proof of separate addressess, e.g. tenancy agreements, utility bills

Try studying a copy of decision R(SB)17/1981, which gives the guidelines for deciding whether a couple are living together as husband and wife or not. These guidelines are almost invariably used by the DWP, local authorities and the Inland Revenue in decisions on cohabitation.
I find cohabitation appeals most difficult when there is no documentary evidence in the form of bills, applications for bank accounts or credit cards, tenancy agreements etc to show that the two people concerned are using separate addresses. However, in the absence of documents it's very useful to get witness statements from people who know the couple, who can say they know they are not cohabiting. Even better to get one or more witnesses to attend the appeal to give evidence.

... a chance for me to again plug the 500 'new' commissioners decisions we've just published to rightsnet, one of which is R(SB)17/1981

@ http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/cgi-bin/publisher/display.cgi?1138-3104-29493+swopshop#Supplementary%20Benefit

The "admirable signposts" in R(SB)17/81 may be the starting point for deciding cohab cases, but subsequent CD's have empahasised that the relationship must be looked at in the round and only then can a decision be made as to whether the relationship is akin to a marriage (see for example CIS/87/1993, CIS/443/1998, and CIS/ 2599/2002)

The limitations of the signposts in RSB)17/81 were also discussed in another reported decision R(SB)35/85.

(All of these decisions except CIS/443/1998 are in the 500 new decisons on rightsnet)

Fri 13-Aug-04 02:38 PM by shawn

You will find CIS/2599/2002 on the Commissioners site

Does anyone have a copy of CIS/443/98 that they would like to send me...

If anyone has a copy, could they send me a copy to:

barrettj@bpplaw.co.uk

Any kind person with one could always forward to this site for publication, otherwise if I get a copy, I will do likewise and send it through.... Not having case law is such a pain!!!

Just as I posted this, a kind wonderful person at the Commissioner's office e-mailed me an electronic copy....

I have now forwarded for publication !!!

thanks to hbspecialists .. here it is http://www.rightsnet.org.uk/pdfs/CIS_443_1998.doc