Why Do They Want To Know About My 5 Month Old Sons Savings On HB/CTB Form?!

moggylover

aliasojo wrote: »

Tbh, I'm not sure at the moment how I feel about that. I think (at the moment but I'm gonna mull it over, lol ) it does matter.

If for arguments sake the GP had opened an account and held the passbook and deposited x amount every week or month into it....would it really be right for the OP to then say, I need this money to live on simply because it was her son's? If the OP had opened the account but it still wasn't her putting the money in there, does it then make a difference to whether she's entitled to use it or not? It's not hers.

I honestly do see the issue but I'm not sure it's clear cut.

I'm with you here in that I can see both sides of the story. I fully understand that there need to be checks to make sure that families have not just hidden their savings in a childs account to hide it.

However, imo (and the fact that you cannot touch a child trust fund tends to back it up) if someone gives money to my child then it is HIS/HER money not mine, and for me to use it (even for his/her benefit) would be theft as the child is unable to judge the advisability of that spending and give informed consent to the use of his/her money.

If they gave ME money for his housing and food that would be mine and rightly subject to means testing I am really uncomfortable with any suggestion that money willed or gifted to a child for things such as university or a deposit of some sort at perhaps 18/20/21 should be subject to plunder along the way.

On the subject of the op saying that she has paid taxes and is getting some back now they are in need: I also have some sympathy with that because much as her money was spent in previous times, some of those most vehement in complaining about assisting those that fall on hard times forget that she may well have been assisting the funding of their education and health care during their youth and that it is one of the swings and roundabouts of life;) . I doubt any of us have ever enjoyed paying tax: but there does seem an unhealthy antipathy to anyone needing help these days that is more widespread and ill-considered than in my youth (and in no small part fuelled by the media insistence on presenting twisted statistics that the vast majority on benefits have made a life choice and are criminals despite plenty of statistics that can refute this. Not meant so much as a condemnation, but I think it is something that a large sector of modern society really does need to think more clearly about.

Op! I think the amount your son has is going to have no affect on your benefits - so take a deeeeeeeeeeep breath and have a cup of tea and the very best of luck in getting your lives back on track.:D

krisskross

I pay £30 a month into my grandsons account. Have done since he was born almost 5 years ago. I would be horrified if his parents were truly in dire need yet left that money untouched. They are a family, they do what is best for the family unit. If that means using the lad's savings to pay the mortgage or whatever for a couple of months if they fall on hard times so be it. Better than losing their home.

Wonder if the OP would feel differently if the child did have more in his account and they did have a mortgage so no help fot 13 weeks as opposed to being able toclaim HB straightaway.

Certainly before taxpayers money is handed out people must have exhausted their personal financial reserves to within the generous savings limits. And that means financial reserves as a family unit in total.

fairplay4u

To OP
I have to say 'i hear ya & i feel ya sista' lol, I think there is a lot of grey areas when it comes to including childrens savings as if it where your own, main ac being CTF. I work in a bank so I know a parent, granparent, godparent or any adult can open a savings ac for a child (as long as they have birth cert ect) I think only a childs savings ac with the benefit applicants name on it should be considered, not if the childs has another adults name on it because only the the adults name on ac & the child have authority to withdraw on the ac. Catch my drift?
As i said I think its a pretty big grey area, so OP keep ur chin up, you have paid taxes to help others in there time of need so now they are returning the favour, it does swing in roundabouts, Best wishes.

viktory

aliasojo wrote: »

Tbh, I'm not sure at the moment how I feel about that. I think (at the moment but I'm gonna mull it over, lol ) it does matter.

If for arguments sake the GP had opened an account and held the passbook and deposited x amount every week or month into it....would it really be right for the OP to then say, I need this money to live on simply because it was her son's? If the OP had opened the account but it still wasn't her putting the money in there, does it then make a difference to whether she's entitled to use it or not? It's not hers.

I honestly do see the issue but I'm not sure it's clear cut.

You see, I think that even if the money belong to the OP's son, it should still be used by the family in times of trouble. The reason I think this is because they are a family and families help each other out. I know my son would hand over all his wages if it were truly needed and I also know that if my Mum had set up a savings account for my children and I genuinely needed the money she would be happy for me to use it.

Benefits are given to adults for the whole family - it is why the bigger your family is the more money you get. Therefore, any savings, even those of young children, should be used before benefits are awarded.

It is harsh but fair in my opinion.

fairplay4u wrote: »

I think only a childs savings ac with the benefit applicants name on it should be considered, not if the childs has another adults name on it because only the the adults name on ac & the child have authority to withdraw on the ac. Catch my drift?

In these times of broken homes and partners coming and going that would be disastrous for the benefits agency. People would be hiding money left, right and centre.

briona

viktory wrote: »

You see, I think that even if the money belong to the OP's son, it should still be used by the family in times of trouble.

I agree with you that having huge savings in a child's name whilst living off the State would be wrong but what does that mean for a CTF? Since the money in a CTF CAN'T be withdrawn (until the child reaches the age of 18) surely DWP cannot class it as notional income?!

But, playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, assume the CTF is funded with the maximum amount of £1200pa by the time the child reaches the age of 14 their money (not including interest) will have surpassed the upper savings limit permissable* for their family to be entitled to claim benefits... Would it be fair for a child to have 16Kish at their disposal (admittedly in 4 years time) but for their family to be fully supported the State...?


*assuming for the purpose of this argument that the rate stays at 16K

Tiggergirl

briona wrote: »

But, playing Devil's Advocate for a moment, assume the CTF is funded with the maximum amount of £1200pa by the time the child reaches the age of 14 their money (not including interest) will have surpassed the upper savings limit permissable* for their family to be entitled to claim benefits... Would it be fair for a child to have 16Kish at their disposal (admittedly in 4 years time) but for their family to be fully supported the State...?

I agree it would be unfair on taxpayers for there to be £16k sat in a CTF while the family is supported by the state. however, it's the government that make the rules on CTFs, so if they expect that family to live on that 16k then there should be a provision in the rules for that to happen.

krisskross

Tiggergirl wrote: »

I agree it would be unfair on taxpayers for there to be £16k sat in a CTF while the family is supported by the state. however, it's the government that make the rules on CTFs, so if they expect that family to live on that 16k then there should be a provision in the rules for that to happen.

Obviously it is a different scenario when money CAN'T be accessed. That is not the issue here.

briona

krisskross wrote: »

Obviously it is a different scenario when money CAN'T be accessed. That is not the issue here.

No, but to be fair to the OP she did say her son only has £75, which although she obviously needs to declare it, would not keep her or her family for very long!

ladyrider260 wrote: »

I will Munchie....the whole £75 of it!

viktory

briona wrote: »

No, but to be fair to the OP she did say her son only has £75, which although she obviously needs to declare it, would not keep her or her family for very long!

Speaking only for myself, I know the OP said that her child only has £75. However, this sparked an interesting (and so far civil) debate about children's savings and benefits.

Still, £75 is a lot of money to some people and could provide the family with a week's food shopping, for example. If it were my child's money I would have no hesitation in using it if it were needed.

queeniebuttercup

The rules chandes in october 2008, child maintenance and alot of their savings only loose a small amount out of the premium for housing benefit,

The capital of a child or young person who is a member of the customer's family is not treated as capital belonging to the customer.
Where the capital of a dependent child or young person is £3000 or less Housing Benefit is not affected.
Where a dependent child or young person has capital of more than £3000 the personal allowance and Disabled Child Allowance appropriate to that child/young person will not be included in the applicable amount. Family Premium and Family Premium (Lone Parent) are not affected.
In such cases, any income of that child or young person is also ignored, with the exception of maintenance payments made to that child or young person which are treated as the customer's income.
The capital of each child or young person is calculated individually for the purpose of deciding whether it affects entitlement to Housing Benefit.