inheritance affecting benefits

cparry

puddy wrote: »

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.

Thanks for your reply. A very useful insight. I don't know why the benefits office and the government cannot come up with a complete thorough list of acceptable and non accepatable purchases/expenditures so benefits officers and for people coming into money cdan refer to - in order to make peoples lives just a little easier. Maybe have this available to view on their website or something. As far as I can see the world is just out to make peoples lives as difficult as possible and to penalise people at any given chance.

RAS

It also very much depends where you live - I gave up a car a decade ago because public transport is excellent and costs about a third of what I would pay for a basic car each year and frankly it was toomuch hassle. Other members of the family NEED a car because there is no public transport, employment within 10 miles is very limited and the roads they have to use are very narrow with passing places. Yes in summer you can get to the nearest small town on a bike but you take your life into your own hands in the tourist season and after dark.

So for their school leaver to be able to access work he has to be able to drive, or they have to move and face a massive loss of equity.

Macro_3

puddy wrote: »

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

Yep. Intent is very difficult, and the burden of proof lies with the La/DWP. I've seen relatively few cases where deprivation has been shown and has stood on appeal/tribunal.

puddy

RAS wrote: »

It also very much depends where you live - I gave up a car a decade ago because public transport is excellent and costs about a third of what I would pay for a basic car each year and frankly it was toomuch hassle. Other members of the family NEED a car because there is no public transport, employment within 10 miles is very limited and the roads they have to use are very narrow with passing places. Yes in summer you can get to the nearest small town on a bike but you take your life into your own hands in the tourist season and after dark.

So for their school leaver to be able to access work he has to be able to drive, or they have to move and face a massive loss of equity.

so how did the school leaver get around before he was 17?

and what would he do if he couldnt drive either for lack of passing the test or through disability or whatever? i find it hard to believe that a little moped wouldnt solve the problem in 'most' cases but i know there are always exceptions

cparry

Thanks for your replies on this they have been very useful. Me and my partner are just going to wait for the inheritance to come through and take it from there. What will be will be over £6,000. If they want to suggest that we are using the monies for luxuries and not necessities - they can do that but my partner has medical professionals who will back us up stating that we need a vehicle, home improvements and small holiday. Just because they think they can tell us what to do don't mean we are going to sit back and let them walk all over us. I believe strongly on fighting for things for my family in life - it's my human rights after all.

poppasmurf_bewdley

There is a passage in Hansard, which stipulates as near as anything, what you can buy without it being regarded as deprivation of capital:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldhansrd/vo020212/text/20212-19.htm

Part of this states by the Minister:

It is entirely reasonable to pay off one's mortgage; have major repair work undertaken on one's home; replace one's car; or have a once-in-a-lifetime holiday. It is not reasonable to give away one's capital or house—for example, to one's child—so that that capital asset would not be taken into account in respect of being taken into local authority care. Neither would it be reasonable to have one's pension paid to a third party, to maximise one's entitlement to an income-related benefit. The noble Baroness knows as I do that those would be improper ways of obtaining entitlement to an income-related benefit.

real1314

cparry wrote: »

Thanks for your replies on this they have been very useful. Me and my partner are just going to wait for the inheritance to come through and take it from there. What will be will be over £6,000. If they want to suggest that we are using the monies for luxuries and not necessities - they can do that but my partner has medical professionals who will back us up stating that we need a vehicle, home improvements and small holiday. Just because they think they can tell us what to do don't mean we are going to sit back and let them walk all over us. I believe strongly on fighting for things for my family in life - it's my human rights after all.

Equally, they are not going to let you take money from the taxpayer when you could support yourself. People earning as little as £180 a week have to pay tax, and then pay their rent and all their own bills with no assistance.

If you genuinely need a vehicle for medical reasons you could claim DLA Mobility. If you genuinely need home improvements for medical reasons, they may well be allowed.

Do you think it's fair that these people should support someone who has £10,000 in the bank that they are not prepared to use to support themselves to a small degree?

Where do your "human rights" come into it? What about the rights of the taxpayers not to have to support people who have savings when the taxpayers may well have none? :cool:

Living_proof

I find it hard to believe that this is even being discussed. Have you no pride? This inheritance gives you the chance to rise above all this. What on earth gives you the right to have a car, a holiday or any renewable at the public expense?

There are plenty of people out here who work all sorts of hours, who have kept their own children even when in very poor health, who have not felt it necessary to become a scheming leech. No wonder there is to be a complete break up of the benefits system.

Get real!

wombles_forever

Hi, trying to be the voice of reason here.

AFAIK you lose £1pw IS for every £250 you have over £6k so you will only lose £16pw IS as a result of having the inheritance and you will have money in the bank to offset it so is it really worth the hassle of trying to avoid this.

Bogof_Babe

Ask whoever is handling probate about a Deed of Variation. This would mean the will is effectively changed to leave some of the money directly to your daughter. Not sure if it would be applicable in your case but nothing ventured...