Deposit for house has to be used before receiving any JSA?

Voyager2002

BongoTheWhippet wrote: »

I think you'll find it is the Jobcentre's job to prove me a liar, not mine. And I'm notoriously bad at record keeping .

I think where we've come with this post, is to identify that the income-based JSA system is notoriously favourable to recklessly overstretched homeowners, and that it punishes and confiscates hard earned cash from poorer, more prudent workers without their own property.

I think its best to leave it at that. It explains a lot of the mess the UK is in now. Like I said that system deserves all the abuse it currently gets.

No, the system does not deserve abuse. It is imperfect, but a lot better than nothing. Try living in a developing country where there is NO safety net, and where families live on the street and eat out of rubbish bins when they can. Perhaps that would make you appreciate the value of what we have got -- and what we all pay for!

ceridwen

eamon wrote: »

This is the downside of being a homeowner with an outstanding mortgage. You need to be working or have independent means. If you don't find a new job fast enough your savings will quickly run out. But you can't splash out as that is against the rules, instead it can be a slow financial death. I fear for many thousands of people as I don't believe that this will be a quick recession and that the good fairy is just around the corner to save our necks.
To all think very carefully re your finances. This mess is not ending anytime soon.

Eamon

Couldnt agree more:T

Having been unemployed before and knowing they'd made all sorts of cuts in mortgage interest subsequently - I made a point of paying back that mortgage just as fast as my little finances would let me - so I could sit back and think "My house ownership and my home are both totally safe no matter what - whew!"

If anyone gets the chance to pay back a mortgage prior to redundancy hitting - then I cant emphasise enough - DO SO! The extra peace of mind alone is well worth it.

Oldernotwiser

ceridwen wrote: »

If anyone gets the chance to pay back a mortgage prior to redundancy hitting - then I cant emphasise enough - DO SO! The extra peace of mind alone is well worth it.

Unless you're aware that redundancies are threatened or you could run into problems with deprivation of capital issues.

barnaby-bear

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Unless you're aware that redundancies are threatened or you could run into problems with deprivation of capital issues.

It's not deprivation of capital You don't have a net asset if you have debts so cancelling/offsetting/paying off existing debts credit cards/ mortgage etc with money available is OK provided done correctly as you have no net asset....

netty_betty_2

some very good advice on this thread

DaisyFlower

BongoTheWhippet wrote: »

I think you'll find it is the Jobcentre's job to prove me a liar, not mine. And I'm notoriously bad at record keeping .

No, you will need to prove it was from a recent house sale, ie have the appropriate solicitors correspondence etc - they dont need to disprove it, they simply wont grant the benefits if you cant prove it.

Whilst the system is far from perfect, what you are suggesting is wrong and the post needs reporting.

oldmotherreilly

Barnaby-Bear, my husband was laid off a few years ago with a redundancy package, and we were told by DWP that paying off the mortgage could indeed be seen as 'deprivation of capital'. They could not give a definitive answer but said that it would definitely be referred to a Decision Maker if we chose to do this, and this could result in us having neither the redundancy money nor the Income Based Jobseeker's Allowance. As that would mean that we would only have Tax Credits to live on, with three children we decided we would live off the savings, as paying off the mortgage would be too great a risk. Luckily, this was a few years ago as I say and my husband found another job before he had finished the old one but these days it is not so simple-it must be a horrible situation to be in today with the employment prospects the way they are.

ceridwen

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Unless you're aware that redundancies are threatened or you could run into problems with deprivation of capital issues.

The exact position is something people would need to check on. I would have thought one was totally safe to use one's money as one pleases unless and until one has actually been served notice of redundancy. There will always be rumours of redundancies/general uncertainty going round - I would have thought the D.W.P. would want concrete "evidence" one definitely knew of impending redundancy (ie the notice letter) before starting getting antsy. I, for one, have had to live with job uncertainty for literally years - still got that job though.

barnaby-bear

oldmotherreilly wrote: »

Barnaby-Bear, my husband was laid off a few years ago with a redundancy package, and we were told by DWP that paying off the mortgage could indeed be seen as 'deprivation of capital'. They could not give a definitive answer but said that it would definitely be referred to a Decision Maker if we chose to do this, and this could result in us having neither the redundancy money nor the Income Based Jobseeker's Allowance. As that would mean that we would only have Tax Credits to live on, with three children we decided we would live off the savings, as paying off the mortgage would be too great a risk. Luckily, this was a few years ago as I say and my husband found another job before he had finished the old one but these days it is not so simple-it must be a horrible situation to be in today with the employment prospects the way they are.

A straightforward mortgage and lump sum redundancy would run into problems and questions but the correct offset / overpayment wrapper means that with uncertainty and time to plan and sufficient planning you can make sure your "savings" and debts are combined in a useful way.

oldmotherreilly

So if we had left the money in the bank account (we did have an offset mortgage) so our payments were reduced they would not have said that they were savings?