*Doodlebug Council tax is a benefit and she is not entitled to it and can be prosecuted for claiming it dishonestly, fraud and blatant theft of public resources.
Her UC would be lower - or even non-existent - if it was known she had income from other sources, namely her father and a resident son, who whether he actually pays for his keep or not will be deemed to do so by the BA.
AS GrannySomerset says, rules is rules and they apply to everyone.*
Yes, and I have repeatedly agreed that if the son is not paying Council Tax elsewhere then they should pay the full amount. I'm not sure that the discount is a benefit as such - it is available to anyone who lives in a property alone, regardless of income or circumstances (including whether or not they have paid NI contributions), but that is splitting hairs, I suppose.
Presents from relatives do not count as income when it comes to UC. How could it possibly be policed? I suppose that if there is a regular standing order going into a bank account then it would be traceable, but cash transactions would be impossible to trace, and a police inspector would surely be aware of this.
I don't think that legally or morally it is wrong to help out a child (of any age) who has fallen on hard times, just as I don't see an issue with helping out a parent. The number of people on here who seem to think that people should basically have nothing before being entitled to any sort of benefits is worrying, I think. Would people go round to claimants' houses on Boxing Day and deduct the value of any presents from their benefits? Should a family member not be allowed to invite claimants over for dinner without it being declared? Where would you draw the line?
I am not saying that anyone should be above the rules - just that in this case, there are no rules that say that charity should not begin at home, nor that gifts from family members are disallowed. The son is a different matter, if he is a permanent resident, rather than a visitor.