housing benefit and savings

Oldernotwiser

lazer wrote: »

i've never understood the deprivation of capital rule. I think savings should be considered as savings net of any amounts owed (ie, if you have £10k in savings and £9k credit cards - you have only actually have £1k in savings)

If you have a credit card in a rent free and the rent free period expires, meaning you then have to pay extornionate rates of interest, are you seriously meant to pay it off at minimum payments as paying it out of savings would be classed as deprivation of capital?

To to OP - My advise would be to furnish your house to a decent standard - you worked hard for your money, so you deserve a nicely furnished house, and as long you keep your recepits i can't see this being classed as deprivation.

As for paying off your student loan - this depends on what sort of student loan it is - is it from the Students Loan Company or a Bank loan, i know that the student loans previously required that you could defer the payment until th income reached a certain threshold, and then it entered normal loan repayments - is this like yours? I which case - you can only continue to make the normal payments and not use your savings.

As for what you owe your mum, arrange to pay her back at a high monthly amount and that way your savings drop below the threshold much faster, and the repayments could be seen as being reasonable, or possibly even as rent for the period you were living there!

Consider all the options you have and then decide the best for you!

It seems to me that every piece of advice you have given the OP (apart from that about the student loans) is completely wrong. Whether you think that savings and loans should balance out is neither here nor there; that isn't the way the system works, fortunately.

HappyMJ

My advice is if your mum wants her money back then give it to her. I wouldn't want to say to her sorry mum i can't give it to you as i need it to pay the rent and by the way you may never get it back. Stay on her good side and give it back if it has been requested. As you say you'll need furniture and all that stuff when you move in. Buy it. No one is stopping you from spending the money as you see fit. As you say this will bring your capital to below £16k and you can APPLY for housing benefit. There is no law against applying for HB but whether you get it or not depends on how much you can convince the person who makes the decision on your claim as to whether you did it to claim more benefit or not. You only need to get your capital under £16k to get any sort of benefit. I'm sure you can find something to spend it on without actually friviously depriving yourself of capital.

dktreesea

sh1305 wrote: »

WTC isn't affected by savings - only taxable interest above £300 pa.

Yes, sorry, what I had meant to say was to claim WTC, then, when your savings drop to below £16,000, claim housing benefit.

lazer

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

It seems to me that every piece of advice you have given the OP (apart from that about the student loans) is completely wrong. Whether you think that savings and loans should balance out is neither here nor there; that isn't the way the system works, fortunately.

That should say unfortunately - what we have is a benefits system that doesn't reward saving but does reward frivilious spending.

In relation to the advice - furnishing a home is not deprevation of capital - its necessary - I didn't say to do it expensively, just to do it to a decent standard.

As for the repayment to her mother
The advise given of a different website is as follows:
"A claimant should therefore try to provide as much evidence as possible to argue their case. For example, they may be able to produce proof of monies given by a relative. Evidence in writing which supports the fact that the capital sum is conditionally given and should be repaid either as soon as possible, or after a specific event, is even better. Such an event could be the sale of a property or the maturing of an insurance policy"

In this case the specific event, could be the OP moving out!

C_Mababejive

Spend a couple of thousand,go on holiday and have a great time then come back and claim when you have dropped below £16k

jiboom

dktreesea: ty for reply. I agree should be under limit after kitting out house. I have nothing!! Just worried when i get told may get into trouble for buying a decent tv! after beds,wardrobes,tables,curtains etc i may even need to apply to social fund.





jamesd: Your post is a common one to this type of question on other forums. Some posters quote rules saying debt repayment is deprivation while other posters quote other rules saying its ok. Looks like it depends on who assesses the cliam and whta rule they know!! Have a friend who works on benefit and he reckons it also depends on if they are busy etc on how deeply they will delve into the claim. He does not recommend i say no to savings as one claimant did, they claimed no bank account. then gave bank details later in claim for benefits to be paid into.




dreambirdie: i have addressed your issues in previous posts. One last time: I have saved for many years, i have not just finished uni, i have no car,no holidays very rarely go out for beer etc.

Yes, i kept money so i had a treat each tax year. I cancelled out the interest on student loan and split rest with my mother as she already had her cash in isa.

Would you not want owed money back if someone you lent it to was moving away? Besides that, SHE WANTS TO DO THE HOUSE UP SO NEEDS IT BACK. She does not want to interfere with her investments as the money in my account is technically hers and slc.

ANyway, many thanks for all you who took time to reply. I will keep receipts, play dumb about the limit and get her to write a letter stating her demands while keeping the slc money in account. I must now check out rest of site for tips on saving on bills, furniture shopping etc. Do they have a section for vouchers for online shops?

Indie_Kid

Paying your mother back isn't a priority debt. On the previous page, there's a list of what is considered priority and therefore, not deprivation of capital.

AsknAnswer2

lazer wrote: »

That should say unfortunately - what we have is a benefits system that doesn't reward saving but does reward frivilious spending.

It doesn't reward frivilious spending! That is what deprivation of capital is all about.

You are right that it doesn't reward saving, but why on earth should it? Means tested benefit. The clue is in the name. If a claimant has means, the state will not support them, and nor should they. I have a little savings, not much and they are well below the amount before it would affect any benefit entitlement. If I found myself in a position of having to claim, I would use the savings I have for my living expenses, before I made a claim, despite them being below the threshold because I do not see why the state should fund my living expenses when I can do so myself, I see that as the purpose of saving, for a day when it is needed. They can be replenished again.

There is little sense of self-pride in the people of this country anymore, little sense of independence. It has become a country of people who want everything. I get fed up hearing "I have paid into the syetem all my working days" - many (including me) have paid into the system all their working days but not all people carry around a view that the government should foot their bill when they have the means to do so themselves. The welfare state exists to help the needy, not the greedy. I always smile at the irony of people who have the means yet want to claim from the state, criticise those already on benefit usually by ranting about claimant's being state dependent, not supporting themselves - which is exactly what those people are trying to do but worse. They want the state to pay their living expenses to support the necessities so that they can use their available means to fund a lifestyle of their choosing. People on benefit get that support because they don't have the means to support themselves with the basic neccessities. Why people find that so utterly difficult to comprehend I will never know.

The OP has a child to care for and a home to furnish, and they will take that into consideration. He can spend his savings, but if he spends them on non priority debts or on items which are not considered a priority he may find himself ineligible for means tested benefit.

Oldernotwiser

lazer wrote: »

That should say unfortunately - what we have is a benefits system that doesn't reward saving but does reward frivilious spending.

Of course the benefits system doesn't reward savings - if you have savings, you don't need benefits!

In relation to the advice - furnishing a home is not deprevation of capital - its necessary - I didn't say to do it expensively, just to do it to a decent standard.

This may be a matter of semantics; one person's decent standard is another person's luxury but the OP's comments about buying a "decent" television suggests that he may be planning on erring on the side of luxury.

As for the repayment to her mother
The advise given of a different website is as follows:
"A claimant should therefore try to provide as much evidence as possible to argue their case. For example, they may be able to produce proof of monies given by a relative. Evidence in writing which supports the fact that the capital sum is conditionally given and should be repaid either as soon as possible, or after a specific event, is even better. Such an event could be the sale of a property or the maturing of an insurance policy"

In the OP's case, the event seems to be his need to claim benefits which is definitely not allowed.

In this case the specific event, could be the OP moving out!

I would advise anyone in this situation to follow the official advice regarding essential and non essential debts rather than that given by "another" (unofficial website.

Indie_Kid

lazer wrote: »

As for the repayment to her mother
The advise given of a different website is as follows:
"A claimant should therefore try to provide as much evidence as possible to argue their case. For example, they may be able to produce proof of monies given by a relative. Evidence in writing which supports the fact that the capital sum is conditionally given and should be repaid either as soon as possible, or after a specific event, is even better. Such an event could be the sale of a property or the maturing of an insurance policy"

In this case the specific event, could be the OP moving out!

If you're going to quote something from another site, please at least give us the source.