inheritance affecting benefits

Mikazaru

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.

How exactly are they walking all over you? By paying your rent, your council tax and providing your family with an income? What 'human rights'? How is it a human right to buy a car and have a honeymoon? Instead of fighting for things for your family and expect everyone else to support them whilst you have a holiday why not use the money to support them yourself?

Living_proof

This nation has become a lot of self-centred wimps who expect to be helped out left, right an centre. We have lost the ability to differentiate between the frail and needy and the hale and greedy.

If you have an inheritance and a huge amount of debt would you expect the creditors to turn a blind eye simply because you had money someone else had worked hard for? I think not.

puddy

i believe that some of these comments could be justified IF the asker was talking about an amount of 200k or whatever, she is talking about having 4k over the MINIMUM amount for savings, not even the maximum

the family are on a low income, its not unreasonable for them to replace a recently scrapped car or have a holiday which is likely to use up the 4k or whatever

however, please dont go on about 'human rights' we have an adequate benefits system in this country so it does not contravene your human rights for the 'system' to consider that you may have enough money to reduce your benefit income by a small amount (£16 per week) by having savings

skintandscared_2

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.

A holiday is not a human right. Neither is a wedding or a nice honeymoon. Myself and my partner work full time and we can't afford any of those things - why should we supplement you being able to?

GlasweJen

I love this human rights crap. Do I have a human right to a new heart? I'd kill to have thousands in the bank, my family will inherit no cash from my death. Hope you enjoy my tax contributions, scum.

rogerblack

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

The minister said in the commons "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's important to realise that general comments in parliament have almost no force in law.

They may be discussing early versions of a bill later amended, or almost be flat-out-lying for the press, what's important is what's drafted and passed into law.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch52.pdf
This is the decision makers guide, specifically on capital for ESA.

See 52832 -52834.

'Claimants have a choice if they give their capital away, spend their capital imprudently, or pay back a debt before the agreed date such as paying off a mortgage before it's due, pay back more than the minimum payment on a credit card debt'

(paraphrasing a bit)

So, the ministers comments about the mortgage are very risky to take as advice, as are his comments about a once in a lifetime holiday. The mortgage is specifically given as an example of what is deprivation of capital.

poppasmurf_bewdley

rogerblack wrote: »

It's important to realise that general comments in parliament have almost no force in law.

Yes, I agree with you. However, if it came to an appeal, what a Minister said in Parliament could be quoted and come in very handy. After all - someone speaking in Parliament cannot lie, so it must be true! (My italics).

seven-day-weekend

cparry wrote: »

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?

It's not a matter of not understanding. You are living on State Benefits (i.e. other peoples' money) If any money over £6k comes your way you are supposed to try to minimise the amount of benefits you need, not waste it on a non-essential like a honeymoon.

Home improvements such as a new cooker or bed, or a modest car, however, would probably not be seen as deprivation.

rogerblack

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Yes, I agree with you. However, if it came to an appeal, what a Minister said in Parliament could be quoted and come in very handy. After all - someone speaking in Parliament cannot lie, so it must be true! (My italics).

It's useful as an introduction to your argument - however - the tribunal are bound to follow the law.
This would be in the form of statutes laid down by parliament, any statutory instruments they pass, and any subsequent caselaw, as well as the general law of the land. (and any EU obligations)

What ministers say in parliament is quite irrelevant in this, and if you did win at the first level tribunal (and the decision makers guide accurately reflects the caselaw and law), the DWP would win at appeal if they chose to do so.

Lying may be a bit strong, mostly, but ministers do tend to speak about laws as if what they asked civil servants in the beginning to achieve in the legislation has actually been done.

Hence - for example - the ongoing rhetoric that the people in the work-related group of ESA are those that are likely to get better in the near future, and need helped into work, when some of them suffer lifelong illnesses.

rogerblack

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

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...

Be very, very wary about asking solicitors that don't specialise about benefit matters, they often don't know how the benefits system works.

Capital is anything you have, or anything you can legally get through the courts, that you can sell - with some exceptions for your house, personal posessions, ...

Asking the court to give you less money is a very clear case of deprivation of capital, and risks you being treated as if you still had that capital.