inheritance affecting benefits

newbie1980

i cannot believe people who inherit believe its there god damn right to keep there benefits.
about time this goverment stood up and smelt the coffee
too many reliant on benefits this day in age.
go out and get a job and be proud to be self sufficient

mildred1978

Kimitatsu wrote: »

new car could be considered a neccessity.

For a non-working couple? Gosh.

cparry

Kimitatsu wrote: »

If YOU put the money into a child ISA then it is still classed as family income - the only exception to this is if the money comes from a grandparent or is an inheritence of their own (you have to prove that the money did not come from you)

Passports and a honeymoon are considered a luxury so you would not be allowed those, but a new car could be considered a neccessity.

HTH

The relative would have wanted us to spend the money and be happy. He would have been attending our wedding and would have given us money as a wedding gift towards our honeymoon had he been alive. So it's for this reason why I would be very unhappy if they said we were not allowed a honeymoon. Why can they not understand this?

RAS

You can go on a honeymoon, just not blow £3000 on it to reduce your capital below the limit.

And you can use some of your £6000 limit to go on a honeymoon.

No-one is stopping you doing that.

puddy

cparry wrote: »

I hope the benefit's system and officers are similar today. Just out of interest what things would you have considered as deprivation?

well to some degree its discretionary, but personally I would have considered a huge amount of money, spent very quickly on what could be seen as fripperies as deprivation.

remember also that someone could spend 50k on a variety of stuff, some of that stuff would be discounted as genuine spending and other spending would be considered reasonable. meaning that maybe out of that 50, i might consider that deprivation occured of 30 of it, but 20k was spent reasonably on things that the family had needed for many years.

if someone bought a 20k car but otherwise lived on benefits, i might consider that to be excessive, but that is a judgement call and someone would have the right to appeal that decision. i would consider a myriad of expensive holidays, maybe buying designer goods, expensive jewellry, obviously giving away large sums to family and friends, high personal outgoings on fancy goods as deprivation. however, someone may need a new sensibly priced car, new kitchen goods up to a particular amount, every day stuff like new beds/sofas to a point.

bank accounts would be asked for as well.

Macro_3

Important to remember that for a claimant to be treated as having deprived themselves of capital (and therefore be treated as still being in posession of it) it has to be shown both that they spent the money, and that part of their motivation for doing so was in order to increase or retain their entitlement to benefit.

To discuss what is allowed and what is not is almost meaningless, because the intent is so important. You might have one person blow £100,000 on junk from tv shopping channels and be considered not to have deprived themselves of capital, and have someone else spend £3000 on replacing their car with the opposite outcome.

puddy

thats true, but the amounts we are talking about here are quite small. to be blunt, she is looking to get rid of 4k. i dont agree with someone previously who said that passports are not a necessity. i believe they are, everywhere asks for them and my OH who works full time on a good wage cannot currently afford to get his replaced!! so i wouldnt view it as deprivation that the family go and get passports

similarly learning to drive wouldnt be deprivation.

but you give the example of 100k spent on tv shopping, yes i would consider that as deprivation, as intent would be shown by the fact that having had access to money which would have prevented you claiming, you spent it and can still claim but have 100ks worth of 'stuff' sitting in the house

intent is difficult but common sense would tell you that if you spend all this money you cannot use it for your living expenses and have to claim benefits

cparry

newbie1980 wrote: »

i cannot believe people who inherit believe its there god damn right to keep there benefits.
about time this goverment stood up and smelt the coffee
too many reliant on benefits this day in age.
go out and get a job and be proud to be self sufficient

In one way I agree if someone inherits a LARGE amount of money then they should have their benefits affected. BUT really peoples situations should be considered on an individual basis and not as a whole. Our situation as a family renting with income support with a 1 year old daughter and no transport is different to a school leaver on JSA - IMO. If I could work it would be something but my partner is disabled and has a lot of health issues and I should be there caring for her and my daughter at this point in time.

I hope to get a job at some point but I would be stupid to consider it right now. I am not lazy either as I volunter twice weekly.

RAS

I am not a benefits specialist but having been around when this issue has come up previously and recalling the expert's comments.

We had one older poster who was advised that a car that worked and saved on repair costs, a new sofa (since the old one was held together with string and propped up on books or something), new fridge/freezer (only one half of the existing functioning) and replacement kitchen units were acceptable purchases.

I think that still left him above the limit for a while.

cparry wrote: »

. We do need a new family vehicle as we are currently without one having recently had to scrap it.

A decent second hand one would be fine

We also need to make home improvements -

Repairs OK but probably not improvements unless you are thinking things like insulation, replacement of rotten windows or seriously decrepit kitchen or bathroom.


and are getting married next year and would like to renew passports and book a honeymoon -

You would need to afford these out of the £6000, not out of the excess.

thinking about puddy's comment - yes - you need passports to meet a lot of ID requirements these days, and it helps if you apply for a job requiring a CRB check. So the adults could well be OK.

puddy

cparry wrote: »

In one way I agree if someone inherits a LARGE amount of money then they should have their benefits affected. BUT really peoples situations should be considered on an individual basis and not as a whole. Our situation as a family renting with income support with a 1 year old daughter and no transport is different to a school leaver on JSA - IMO. If I could work it would be something but my partner is disabled and has a lot of health issues and I should be there caring for her and my daughter at this point in time.

I hope to get a job at some point but I would be stupid to consider it right now. I am not lazy either as I volunter twice weekly.

you make some good points but i wouldnt consider a school leaver on jsa to 'need' a car either! i would expect them to use public transport (as they would have done whilst at school) or to get a cheap moped to drive around on so that they are available to work

there is some debate i suppose about whether someone with a one year old child needs a car, you can travel on public transport with her but also in terms of needing to get to work.

if your partner has health issues are you claiming all you need to aid mobility, this could enable her to have a mobility car. if she is not entitled to this (and i say this loosely), your need for a car may be less than you say.

you also need to bear in mind that once you buy that car and use your excess savings, you have to pay to run and service it and if you're struggling already on your income you may not be able to.