Friend who is worried

PasturesNew

So the only issue is that with £30k left over she's worried about losing her benefits. Nuts innit.

She'd get them back again after about a year or so, once she's been living on her £30k savings they'd be under the £16k threshold again.

baza52

Its a no brainer...
Sell the house thats worth 130k and then buy your LA house at a greatly reduced price of 100k.
Sit tight for a few years and then you can sell it 250k.

The 130k house will never be worth as much.

real1314

Pobby wrote: »

Currently a friend with 3 kids is not working. She has housing, ct and all the usual benefits and is hoping for part time wrk shortly.

Her estranged father has died leaving her a house worth say £130,000. Once that is sold she intends to buy her la house but will have about £30,000 left over.

She does not want to get into trouble as at some point, prior to purchase, she may have the full house amount sitting in her account.

I also warned her, rightly or wrongly, that if, as she suggests buys a £10,000 car that may not be looked upon very well.

What would you kindly suggest she does?

1. I'm not sure why anyone would be "worried" that they are going to receive £ One Hundred and Thirty Thousand pounds £.
Suggesting that this is a "worry" is completely nonsensical, especially on a money saving site, where some people struggle to live on their weekly income.

2. It may be possible for her to buy her house using some of the money. She needs to check this with JCP / any other body paying her benefit.

3. Whichever way they say she can/cannot go, she will still have a large amount of cash. This will mean she cannot get benefit, but she will still have sufficient savings to live off during this time, and the freedom from benefit rules means she could look at improving her life by other routes as she wished.

£130,000 is an OPPORTUNITY not a "worry".

terryw

rea1314,

Where have you got the word "worry" from? The Op has not suggested this is a worry.l

ErisBadb

'If you deliberately get rid of capital in order to claim or increase your benefit you are still treated as possessing it. You are likely to be affected by this rule if at the time of using up your money, you knew that you might qualify for benefit ( or more benfit ) as a result or qualify more quickly. '
Saying that though,' in practice, arguing successfully that you have not deprived yourself of capital to get or increase benefit may boil down to whether you can show that you would have spent the money the way you did regardless of benefit entitlement '
I would say that buying a house would come under this but expensive cars may not.

Once you friend owns a house she will not need to worry about HB.
Once she is working part time ( 16 hrs+ ) , she wouldn't be able to claim IS and may, ( should ) be entitled to WTC.
She should get CB and CTC anyway but probably would have to pay CT .
So it actually looks like she is moving out of benefits and will be way better off with this inheritance. :j
The £30,000 could be an opportunity to become self employed ?

Jomo

nannytone wrote: »

3 bed houses where i live are going fior under 100k
why should she sell it and have to support herself when the law allows her to move in and still claim?

Why shouldn't she support herself if able to do so? Am I missing something here or are benefits suppost to help those who Need them?

terryw

Jomo wrote: »

Why shouldn't she support herself if able to do so? Am I missing something here or are benefits suppost to help those who Need them?

I agree with you Jomo. But unfortunately the post to which you refer is also correct.

Jomo

terryw wrote: »

I agree with you Jomo. But unfortunately the post to which you refer is also correct.

I'm surprised a £130k property isn't considered as asset tbh, especially if owned outright with no mortgage?

It's all wrong if that is the case...legal or not!

Oldernotwiser

terryw wrote: »

rea1314,

Where have you got the word "worry" from? The Op has not suggested this is a worry.l

You haven't read the thread title.

terryw

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

You haven't read the thread title.

Oops! Yes you're right - I was just going off the quote. Apologies.