But doesn't this indicate therefore that society and the law does not require adult kids to pay their parents to live with them?
I'm not following your line of argument. Can you explain why you think it indicates that society and the law does not require adult kids to pay rent to their parents?
As a better example, people living in their parent's home don't automatically have the legal rights of tenants. I think that indicates that they are not legally viewed as tenants.
And what do you think any landlord does with their rent? They pay for their car / house etc with it.
Landlords don't usually pay the rent to their tenants, which was the situation I was describing. I didn't say anything about the parents paying for
their car, etc.
I'll elaborate on the scenario:
For the sake of clearer illustration, I'll make things more direct rather than referring to person A and x amount of money. So let's pretend that I'm your son and I'm living in your home.
You charge me £400 a month rent.
I claim £400 a month housing benefit.
I give you the £400 a month I get from housing benefit.
You use that £400 a month to pay for
my car and
my petrol and if there's anything left you spend it on
me.
So the "housing benefit" I'm claiming is actually paying for my car.
That's the subtle approach. There's a more direct approach:
You charge me £400 a month rent.
I claim £400 a month housing benefit.
I give you the £400 a month I get from housing benefit.
You give me £200 a month. Free £200 for each of us, nice.
There's an even more direct approach:
You "charge" me £400 a month rent.
I claim £400 a month housing benefit.
We pocket £200 a month each and lol.
There is plenty of scope for fraud. In that sitcom I mentioned (Bread? Darling Buds of May?) two members of the family owned a house each. Each lived in the other's house and they charged each other rent, which they both got housing benefit for. No rent was actually paid, of course. Just some "creative accounting". It's like businesses doing tax
evasion avoidance.