Supreme Court Ilott judgement.
Comments
-
Yorkshireman99
I may not have explained myself fully regarding the £20K that was structured to Mrs Ilott in such a way to ensure she did not lose her means tested benefits.
I've seen a few threads on various boards from posters asking about the impact on benefits if they receive an inheritance that takes them over the savings threshold.
I've found one such thread:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5557897&highlight=benefits
on which you replied:
You appear to have a different opinion of that poster's situation to that of Mrs Ilott.Yorkshireman99 wrote: »The whole point of MTBs is that they are not paid to those who have cash reserves above a certain level. Why should the taxpayer subsidize those who have sufficient cash assets? It might, and I stress might, be possible to set up some kind of discretionary trust but even so she would probably have to declare the income.
Why is that?
Why should the taxpayer subsidise Mrs Ilott who would have over £20K in cash assets?0 -
That is not what I said. Quote "there is no mechanism to stage it." However a testator could set up a trust that provided for a beneficiary to receive income, but not the capital, at a level that did not affect benefits.iammumtoone wrote: »Are you saying if someone wanted to leave a large sum of money to a person who claimed benefits, could they legally word the will in a way that 'drip fed' the money to the beneficiary to allow them to continue claiming benefits? :eek:
Surely that can't be the case, that is so wrong.0 -
She would not. That is the whole point of the Court structuring the award. If the Court just awarded the whole amount then the claimant would effectively receive nothing because it would be offset by a loss of benefits. Ultimately it is up to the Court to decide what is fair. Structuring awards in this way is quite common.Yorkshireman99
I may not have explained myself fully regarding the £20K that was structured to Mrs Ilott in such a way to ensure she did not lose her means tested benefits.
I've seen a few threads on various boards from posters asking about the impact on benefits if they receive an inheritance that takes them over the savings threshold.
I've found one such thread:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5557897&highlight=benefits
on which you replied:
You appear to have a different opinion of that poster's situation to that of Mrs Ilott.
Why is that?
Why should the taxpayer subsidise Mrs Ilott who would have over £20K in cash assets?0 -
Yorkshireman99 wrote: »That is not what I said. Quote "there is no mechanism to stage it." However a testator could set up a trust that provided for a beneficiary to receive income, but not the capital, at a level that did not affect benefits.
They could, but the disregards on income on means-tested benefits are small.
On the other hand, a lot of people appear not to realise that in the most usual case of legacies, benefits and children, that of children with disabilities, a lot of the benefits are not means-tested, and they are worrying about nothing.0 -
Agreed, but in practice it does mean that a testator does not have power to ensure that a child (even when adult) can be disinherited, as if the testator does not make reasonable provision for them, even if it would be reasonable to not do so, the court can do so.
This will surprise many and destroy a common belief.
The circumstances of this case were pretty much unique. Had the daughter been living a comfortable middle-class life, the outcome would have been entirely different (the case would have been, rightly, dismissed at the outset). Had the deceased left the money to other family members, or to charities with whom she had an established link, the outcome would almost certainly have been different. Had the daughter not had access to pro-bono lawyers the outcome would definitely have been different.
All this case shows is that the 1975 Act is now drawn somewhat wider than it was before. S.3(1)(g), allowing a court to have regard to "any other matter, including the conduct of the applicant or any other person, which in the circumstances of the case the court may consider relevant." still applies.0 -
Yorkshireman99 wrote: »She would not. That is the whole point of the Court structuring the award. If the Court just awarded the whole amount then the claimant would effectively receive nothing because it would be offset by a loss of benefits. Ultimately it is up to the Court to decide what is fair. Structuring awards in this way is quite common.
'She would not.....' what?
I'll ask again- why should this woman be treated more favourably financially than someone who is on benefits and just inherited £20K that takes them over the threshold for means-tested benefits?
I do understand that if the court awarded her the full £20K, she would lose MTB.
But why should she have an award structured in such a way when other beneficiaries don't?0 -
I am not defending the system in any way just trying to explain what it is! The difference is that in one case it is a legacy but in the other the Court is awarding money under entirely separate legislation in a way that is analogous to damages. I fully accept that there are valid arguments on both sides but ultimately it is for the Courts to apply the law as defined by Parliament. If change is needed then it is for Parliamnent to change the law.'She would not.....' what?
I'll ask again- why should this woman be treated more favourably financially than someone who is on benefits and just inherited £20K that takes them over the threshold for means-tested benefits?
I do understand that if the court awarded her the full £20K, she would lose MTB.
But why should she have an award structured in such a way when other beneficiaries don't?0 -
Like Yorkshireman I think there are valid arguments on both sides. Part of me thinks that if the law of the land says that she is entitled to £50k from her mother's estate, then she doesn't need means tested benefits until she has spent the £50k, simple as that. And that enriching the claimant at the expense of the taxpayer is exactly the kind of thing that gets the masses annoyed with judges and puts them on the front page of the Daily Mail under headlines like "Enemies of the People".
And part of me thinks this is just what anyone would do who wanted to leave a legacy to a relative who was incapable of working and on means tested benefits, if they understood how the system worked. Judges are supposed to understand how the system works so they're practically duty bound to do it this way.
One point of order I will make. YM says "If the Court just awarded the whole amount then the claimant would effectively receive nothing because it would be offset by a loss of benefits." This is not true. Benefits won't give the claimant £50k all in one go. £50k is enough to buy a car, move to a new city, even start a business, and generally obliterate whatever reason the Ilotts have for being permanently unemployed. But, like I said, it is what it is and this is not the right MSE forum to question their life choices.0 -
The other point to note is one reason the initial claim succeeded was that the benefits were not sufficient to provide.
The £50k was based on a small top up maintenance amount capitalized.0 -
On your last point I disagree because the Court had far more information on which to make a judgement that we do. Nor do we have much information to judge what circumstances are the cause of the Ilott's long term unemployent so to suggest they may be at fault without that information is unfair. I don't believe the Courts are a pushover in calculating what a fair amount, and how it should be structured so I am content to accept their decision. In fact £50,000, structured over a period of time in the absence of any MTB is not going to last for long even if it is spent wisely. The family would certainly not be well off by any means.Malthusian wrote: »Like Yorkshireman I think there are valid arguments on both sides. Part of me thinks that if the law of the land says that she is entitled to £50k from her mother's estate, then she doesn't need means tested benefits until she has spent the £50k, simple as that. And that enriching the claimant at the expense of the taxpayer is exactly the kind of thing that gets the masses annoyed with judges and puts them on the front page of the Daily Mail under headlines like "Enemies of the People".
And part of me thinks this is just what anyone would do who wanted to leave a legacy to a relative who was incapable of working and on means tested benefits, if they understood how the system worked. Judges are supposed to understand how the system works so they're practically duty bound to do it this way.
One point of order I will make. YM says "If the Court just awarded the whole amount then the claimant would effectively receive nothing because it would be offset by a loss of benefits." This is not true. Benefits won't give the claimant £50k all in one go. £50k is enough to buy a car, move to a new city, even start a business, and generally obliterate whatever reason the Ilotts have for being permanently unemployed. But, like I said, it is what it is and this is not the right MSE forum to question their life choices.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards