We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Would this be allowed?
Comments
-
If dookar is around now or later then he is usually a good person to comment on stuff like this.
This is a good question and one I don't have an 'off the top of my head' answer to.
My first thought would be that it would definitely not be deprivation because the OP still has the capital - it may be in the form of bricks and mortar rather than cash, but they still have it. Next is that if they are living in the property it is 'not capital' (ignoring the whole issue of equity/outstanding mortgage etc)
Hmm, I'm not confident about the above I'd need to check regs etc
Big question - what are your living arrangements now?
Smaller questions - what has changed that means you need to claim IS? What were your plans for the savings prior to this change?0 -
Edited: didn't want too much personal info on here so now that it's been seen by those in the know (as it were) I've deleted it.0
-
Dookar - yea its definately a "reg book" scenario
Marcheline - Thats not a good situation to be in. I really hope you can sort something outAll hail to the sale!!!!!! :beer:
new beginnings...... new successes..0 -
Okay, I'm sorry if I seemed to be prying.
Regarding deprivation, the burden of proof is on the secretary of state, they must show:
1. You had the capital
2. You no longer have the capital
3. You deliberately disposed of the capital in order to obtain or increase entitlement to benefit
I really don't think she could demonstrate those things if you currently live with a partner, the relationship breaks down and you buy a property to live in
Again, I haven't checked the regs so don't take this as gospel. I'm in the middle of something now, but if somebody more knowledgable doesn't come along I'll try and update tomorrow
This is bugging me, I'm 99.9% certain that there will be no deprivation but I just have one unquantifible nagging feeling.
Also, my instinct is to be concerned about the mortgage payments from the sister than any deprivation0 -
Thank you, though I am to blame for doing things the wrong way round in the first place and let this be a lesson to all others out there!!0
-
I agree with dookar - if you were claiming benefit from my LA, i wouldn't class it as deprivation of capital
but i know IS regs are slightly different to hb/ctb regs (esp in terms of how maintenance is treated!!!)
All hail to the sale!!!!!! :beer:
new beginnings...... new successes..0 -
Marcheline wrote: »Thank you, though I am to blame for doing things the wrong way round in the first place and let this be a lesson to all others out there!!
I don't know what this means.0 -
And thank you also dookar, I would be very grateful if you could let me know any further thoughts you have on this matter once you get a minute.0
-
I don't know what this means.
Sorry: in response to vixie in post 14, I said I was to blame for my situation. I meant that having a baby outside of wedlock has complicated my circumstances (ideally I'd have been married first) though I suppose I could still be in the situation if I'd been married and then got divorced.0 -
I'm wondering if the DM wouldn't also consider the % of the purchase price that the deposit would represent, that the OP might be allowed to use savings to fund a minimal deposit to secure the mortgage and accommodation. But that they'd regard a higher deposit as unreasonable, bearing in mind both the mortgage and the house would still be in Sister's name.
i.e. it might be reasonable to use £10,000 to pay a 10% deposit. But it'd be unreasonable to use £50,000 for a 50% deposit, bearing in mind to get housed you might only have needed a 10% deposit in the first place. The OP thereby deprives herself of £40,000.
But like Dookar says, the DM then has to prove "on the balance of probability" that the OP's deliberately deprived herself of that money to get benefit or an increased rate of benefit.
They could argue that, being financially competent enough to come to this agreement with her Sister, that it was reasonable to expect her to be aware of the capital rules for social security benefit. Or that she was sufficiently savvy to have known to at least query benefit entitlements with DWP.
DM's also tend to look at "what if" scenarios. What if the Sisters fell out, what arrangements would be in place to sell the property and refund the deposit ?
I think they'd be looking for a written agreement between both parties to be provided in support of the application.
Just get the feeling this one isn't cut and dried by any means.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards