Receiving money from sale of house so benefits stopped.

andyandflo

This does seem a ridiculous situation. If the money is in the family home as equity and then they die, the children will inherit the property or its net sale proceeds. Reason: DWP/JC+ do not take into account the family home or its equity when calculating means tested benefits.

House - Die - kids get the inheritance - no effect on benefits
House sold - kids get inheritance - lose benefits.

Then why is there a difference if the house is sold, and you then cannot have any means tested benefits, even if you pass the inheritance to the kids earlier than anticipated.

It is not savings, it's the same asset without the house attached to it.
Seems a bit one sided to me.

DavidF

If the lady in question is suffering some mental issues then it basically falls down to someone else (Her son) taking charge of her financial affairs. There is procedures in place for this but at the moment I really cant think of what its called. But as said the family would be doing this lady a service if they can take over/help her manage her finances now that she is deteriorating. A sad state of affairs but alas sometimes we have to take very tough decisions. Good luck op.

bigjl

Not really, the governemnt isn't making them sell the house, that is a concious act.

An inheritance is only an inheritance if it ownership is passed on after death, anything else comes under cake and eating it.

Benefits are there to help those not in a position to help themselves.

It has been posted many times, it seems to come under "Deprivation of Capital"

It comes down to the simple fact, they can't access the equity in the house, so they are entitled to benefits, if they access the equity then they are no longer in a position to need benefits.

If her Mental Health is in doubt then surely there is legal recourse, but it would depend on what MHI she has, and if she is deemed not to have capacity.

If she is found to have capacity then she can what she wants, wether it is good for her or not, we all have the right to make bad decisions.

I always thought that when you moved house the mortgage goes with you to the new house, subject to value, so in theory she wouldn't need to qualify for a new mortgage, and if she is servicing the mortgage now then where is the problem, she does realise that the rent will be more than a mortgage in most cases. Or is she funding the mortgage with SMI.

It is difficult without knowing the full circumstances. Maybe talking to her GP would be an idea, has she been assessed under section, if her actions are outside her normal character then she may need reassessed.

alwaysonthego_2

DavidF wrote: »

If the lady in question is suffering some mental issues then it basically falls down to someone else (Her son) taking charge of her financial affairs. There is procedures in place for this but at the moment I really cant think of what its called. But as said the family would be doing this lady a service if they can take over/help her manage her finances now that she is deteriorating. A sad state of affairs but alas sometimes we have to take very tough decisions. Good luck op.

You mean Power of Attorney (sp) but the money still belong to the lady.

real1314

andyandflo wrote: »

This does seem a ridiculous situation. If the money is in the family home as equity and then they die, the children will inherit the property or its net sale proceeds. Reason: DWP/JC+ do not take into account the family home or its equity when calculating means tested benefits.

House - Die - kids get the inheritance - no effect on benefits
House sold - kids get inheritance - lose benefits.

Then why is there a difference if the house is sold, and you then cannot have any means tested benefits, even if you pass the inheritance to the kids earlier than anticipated.

It is not savings, it's the same asset without the house attached to it.
Seems a bit one sided to me.

Erm, I can't make head nor tail of that.

If you're talking aabout it being the same asset with/without the house attached to it, by which I assume you mean unsold (i.e a house) or unsold (i.e a pile of cash) it makes little difference. Either would be treated as a capital asset.
If however you mean they move into the house, well the DWP et al do not treat "the property occupied as the home" as an asset, so they could move into it. In doing so they'd reduce dependance on Housing Benefit / LHA, hence the state / tax payers do not have to support something which the claimant is capable of providing for themself.

Duncombe

real1314 wrote: »

Erm, I can't make head nor tail of that.

If you're talking aabout it being the same asset with/without the house attached to it, by which I assume you mean unsold (i.e a house) or unsold (i.e a pile of cash) it makes little difference. Either would be treated as a capital asset.
If however you mean they move into the house, well the DWP et al do not treat "the property occupied as the home" as an asset, so they could move into it. In doing so they'd reduce dependance on Housing Benefit / LHA, hence the state / tax payers do not have to support something which the claimant is capable of providing for themself.

This poster often gives out incorrect advice, some of which advocates benefit fraud. I would be inclined to ignore him in the future - you will only be wasting your breath.