Can this be legal?

Suzkin

tazwhoever wrote: »

Is this 'friend' YOU?

(Chuckles): No - I am not the 'friend'. He is a real and living 'other' / person. When I posted the enquiry, I wondered if people might think it was actually me, but it definitely is not.

Suzkin

dreamylittledream wrote: »

Income Support is only income based - clue in the name!

I'm finding this thread a little comical.

Assigned shares are identical to a mortgage endowment or a mortgage ISA (in fact they may even be a mortgage ISA - as shares can be held in an ISA shell). A deed of asignation means that they can not be sold without the lenders permission to release the asignation - which they won't generally do without an alternative repayment vehicle.

An assigned investment can not be counted as capital as it is not a realisable asset.

Once again a lot of slight self righteous posturing by those that don't actually know...

Thanks for your explanation to my enquiry - although really do not appreciate the patronising tone of it: I asked for advice, and I do not think any of the respondents have been comical in their response.

"slight self righteous posturing by those that don't actually know.."
Every poster here, has only tried to help / advise as best they know - so why not cut them some slack.

Suzkin

GlasweJen wrote: »

The OP seems to be implying that his friend hasn't actually recieved the £1m yet so means testing doesn't come into as the shares aren't counted because of the explanation dreamy gave which is spot on.

Once the million hits the account then it will all change (if indeed the million quid even exists).

Yes - I was fully aware of this before I posted the thread. I was concerned about his *current* situation i.e. the shares, saying he is helping him mum (but not really etc.), claiming to have no money etc.

Suzkin

calleyw wrote: »

I really don't know what they are claiming as in one breath we are told IS and CT benefit. And then carers allowance has been chucked in to the mix as well.

With carers it make no difference as not means tested but if they getting CT benefit then that makes a difference. Would they get a top of IS as well?

Yours

Calley
.

Basically, this person is receiving at least: CT benefit (he is paying nothing on his main residence, £0.00); Carers allowance (he claims to be caring 35hrs pw), mortgage interest payment; income support.

He has already been on JSA (contributions based) I think: basically, he is stringing the state along in terms of time (as he is not really exerting himself looking for work), just until the case for retrieving the £1m comes to fruition.

GlasweJen

He doesn't need to look for work if he's claiming carers allowance. You say in previous posts that he travels quite a bit to care for someone and then say that he doesn't provide care for this person, which is it?

JSA contributions would have been paid only if he lost his job or left with very good reason and for a maximum of 6 months, he would have had to have worked for 2 years to qualify so why grudge someone who has lost their job a 6 month safety net.

From what I see this guy is doing nothing wrong, he has an unconventional and very risky mortgage and a sick relative so is claiming benefit to look after said relative while waiting for a rather substantial inheritance to come through (and that can take a long time), he then plans to live on said inheritance, until then he is entitled to claim help with council tax etc from the state so what's your problem? Jealousy perhaps?

dreamylittledream

GlasweJen wrote: »

I think the short answer re. the shares is that those types of mortgages are very rare as the shares could decrease in value over time leaving a massive deficit so it's a high risk mortgage.

Rare? :rotfl:

Do you have any idea how many mortgages are endowment linked in this country? The risk factor is pretty much identical.

The lender usually won't care a huge amount providing the house is worth more than the mortgage amount - the capital borrowed will always be reapid on sale and until that point interest is being paid.

dreamylittledream

Suzkin wrote: »

Thanks for your explanation to my enquiry - although really do not appreciate the patronising tone of it: I asked for advice, and I do not think any of the respondents have been comical in their response.

"slight self righteous posturing by those that don't actually know.."
Every poster here, has only tried to help / advise as best they know - so why not cut them some slack.

There is a distinct air of disapproval regarding this persons affairs from many posters in this thread and indeed yourself.

It shows a lack if understanding of mortgage repayment vehicles and a slight air of jealousy over someone who appears to be 'getting one over the system'.

If you don't know the answer you should not be posting opinion as fact on an internet forum.

Suzkin

dreamylittledream wrote: »

There is a distinct air of disapproval regarding this persons affairs from many posters in this thread and indeed yourself.

It shows a lack if understanding of mortgage repayment vehicles and a slight air of jealousy over someone who appears to be 'getting one over the system'.

If you don't know the answer you should not be posting opinion as fact on an internet forum.

1) If there is any to quote "disapproval" at all, it is if someone manipulates the system, at the expense of others: For example, he has told me he only goes back home to save himself on food and washing etc. (which his mother provides and does for him).

2) If "it shows a lack of understanding of mortgage repayment vehicles" - then surely we've come to the right forum? My understanding is that one of the purposes of this forum is indeed to assist clarity and aid understanding, as not everyone knows everything.

3) "opinion as fact": this is your interpretation / perception? I don't think these opinions are necessarily 'fact'; they are opinions!

4) In terms of "jealously", some of the posts appear rather to reflect and grapple with a sense of injustice (in terms of principle), which is what my thread, if you read it carefully, is indeed about.

Suzkin

GlasweJen wrote: »

He doesn't need to look for work if he's claiming carers allowance. You say in previous posts that he travels quite a bit to care for someone and then say that he doesn't provide care for this person, which is it?

JSA contributions would have been paid only if he lost his job or left with very good reason and for a maximum of 6 months, he would have had to have worked for 2 years to qualify so why grudge someone who has lost their job a 6 month safety net.

From what I see this guy is doing nothing wrong, he has an unconventional and very risky mortgage and a sick relative so is claiming benefit to look after said relative while waiting for a rather substantial inheritance to come through (and that can take a long time), he then plans to live on said inheritance, until then he is entitled to claim help with council tax etc from the state so what's your problem? Jealousy perhaps?

Please read my previous post - and you may wish (if so inclined) to read the thread again?

Tehya

Hello,

I'm a full time carer (for my hubby) receiving Carer's Allowance and the rules of what is classed as care can be quite complicated. Sometimes travelling times can be counted as care as can cleaning up before and after a carer has looked after someone. Your friend may not like to admit just what he does for mum, some men are like that as they feel it makes them look soft so it could all be bravado on his part. People know I care for my husband but nobody else (except his Drs) know exactly what I do for him and I wouldn't want that any other way as he deserves to keep his dignity especially with his friends.

As for benefits CA is not means tested and if that is his only income then he will get a small top up of income support (so mixed with his CA the IS will bring him in line with what he would receive on JSA) and along with that help with housing costs and council tax. If the DWP are helping towards his mortgage I would be pretty much sure they would already know how it's being financed in the first place as they need this documentation before they start to pay anything, my sister in law had to gather so much paperwork for a bit of help (£50 a month) it was crazy.

I'm a bit confused about the money he may inherit because you seem to imply he frittered it away in one post (I'm not particularly keen on his general attitude, plus the fact that he knowingly frittered his now-deceased fathers hard earned £1m away (also with lots of champagne parties), telling me that he never bothered to think about any occupation as he 'knew' he would inherit wealth - and now the state is falling over backwards to help him out (even though an impending huge payout is due soon) or is this a separate amount of money. Though if he's due to come into a lot of money, as the thread suggests, all his benefits will stop and then he can provide for himself though as long as he's not working he'll still be entitlled to CA as savings are not counted only earnings.

He does sound quite cavalier about everything but as i've already said it could all be bravado so if you're thinking of reporting him I would be very careful and make sure you know the facts. Hope this helps to put another perspective on things but as you're the one there only you can decide what is real or not.

Tehya