100 year old grannioe being asked to repay £17k

Mupette

Age Concern, social services, why are they not involved.

sunnyone

So the flat is owned by granny but in reallity its blongs to your uncle who has post delivered to it, no wonder thay have taken her SDP away!

Does your uncle own his own house or other homes?

Your granny has a lot of money coming in even without the SDP and so she should pay it back fairly quickly, a third is pretty fair really when they could prosicute her because of the amount and the lenght of time the fraud has gone on for.

tcr_3

sunnyone wrote: »

Your granny has a lot of money coming in even without the SDP and so she should pay it back fairly quickly, a third is pretty fair really when they could prosicute her because of the amount and the lenght of time the fraud has gone on for.

There's not a snowballs chance in Hell that they'd prosecute someone of that age for benefit fraud. It's not in the public interest.

The Overpayment Recovery Guide (ORG) is the "rulebook" for calculating & recovering overpayments. They sent a visiting officer out to deliver the bad news, as per the ORG, it's a more "sympathetic" way to deliver bad news. But it's also a way to determine whether Granny's health might suffer if she's given the news & how she'll react to it.

"5.1 Where the interviewer considers that there is a serious health risk to the debtor if the decision letter is issued (e.g. the debtor appears so ill that they might have a stroke, heart or serious panic attack if the letter is issued), they should not issue it on that occasion.

5.2 If the risk to health is considered so great that the decision letter should not be issued, even on a later occasion, then a full report should be submitted to Debt Management Policy & Briefing section to consider the next course of action".

One of the "courses of action" available is simply to write off the debt. Why ? Because Granny's never going to pay it off via deductions from benefit, time's against her & for all the heartache involved it just isn't worth it. Another possibility is the charge to which Viktory refers although I've never seen that done in practice.

The deductions from benefit to pay back the overpayment are only a few quid a week, I'd simply tell her that DWP have made a terrible mistake & that she should forget all about it. And just give her a couple of quid from your own pocket every week to make up the difference.

krisskross

tcr wrote: »

One of the "courses of action" available is simply to write off the debt. Why ? Because Granny's never going to pay it off via deductions from benefit, time's against her & for all the heartache involved it just isn't worth it. Another possibility is the charge to which Viktory refers although I've never seen that done in practice.

But if it's not paid back then surely it will be recouped from Granny's assets when she dies, and this would include the flat anyway.

tcr_3

krisskross wrote: »

But if it's not paid back then surely it will be recouped from Granny's assets when she dies, and this would include the flat anyway.

I'd be arguing on the grounds it shouldn't be recoverable at all, tbh, given the OP's age. War criminals get off easier.

krisskross

tcr wrote: »

I'd be arguing on the grounds it shouldn't be recoverable at all, tbh, given the OP's age. War criminals get off easier.

Why shouldn't it be recoverable? This is taxpayers money. After all if it is repaid after her death then she won't know anything about it. Why should her heirs profit?

christabell

I really think you need to talk to Age Concern ( or whatever their name is now) or CAB regarding professional help with this one.

Good Luck

tcr_3

krisskross wrote: »

Why shouldn't it be recoverable? This is taxpayers money. After all if it is repaid after her death then she won't know anything about it. Why should her heirs profit?

The OP states that the Uncle was informed by a DWP staff member that his moving in with Granny wouldn't affect her benefits. That's obviously incorrect advice. Which means any overpayment which follows as a result of bad advice can be classed as an "official error" and written off.

Secondly, it's routine for DWP to weed out & destroy customer correspondence after 18 months. So I doubt very much they can legitimately calculate & recover any overpayment prior to August 2009 ... because apart from the initial claim form, they'll have destroyed most if not all of the correspondence/notes held on file.

Thirdly, they've got the discretion to write off the overpayment altogether on the grounds of age & health considerations.

I know you might not appreciate that answer, Mister Taxpayer, but Granny has got good grounds to appeal.

Oldernotwiser

tcr wrote: »

The OP states that the Uncle was informed by a DWP staff member that his moving in with Granny wouldn't affect her benefits. That's obviously incorrect advice. Which means any overpayment which follows as a result of bad advice can be classed as an "official error" and written off.



I know you might not appreciate that answer, Mister Taxpayer, but Granny has got good grounds to appeal.

Unless the uncle has any proof of what he's been told, there's only his word for it isn't there? Strangely, not everyone tells the truth when it's to their financial advantage.;)

Although I agree that such an elderly lady should well not be bothered for this amount, I can see no reason why the money shouldn't be recovered from her estate. Whoever inherits will be receiving an undeserved windfall anyway, so I don't really think that deducting money owed to the public purse is unreasonable.

tcr_3

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Unless the uncle has any proof of what he's been told, there's only his word for it isn't there? Strangely, not everyone tells the truth when it's to their financial advantage.;)

Although I agree that such an elderly lady should well not be bothered for this amount, I can see no reason why the money shouldn't be recovered from her estate. Whoever inherits will be receiving an undeserved windfall anyway, so I don't really think that deducting money owed to the public purse is unreasonable.

I think any appeals tribunal, when faced with a gentleman in his 70's and Granny in three figures, will err on their side.