We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Deceased mother didn't declare all her savings!
Beltup
Posts: 25 Forumite
A briefly as possible...
Mum died aged 82 at end of last year.
Dept Work & Pensions say she had too much money (£20k) at the time of her death and are looking to get returned payments.
We've not got a great problem with this but as Mum had been widowed since the age of 50 and had struggled to make ends meet have been looking at how she accumulated the savings.
One area relates to her recieving back payment of some £2-3k for income support and attendance allowance following a claim that was turned down but later found to be within her entitlement. She probably saw this as money owed for the preceding years of hardship and it was her desire to avoid debts that meant she didn't have to spend it and subsequently stuck it in the bank. In other words her financial position would not have been compromised had she received it as per her entitlement on a weekly basis at which time she would have been able to spend it.
Another area we are looking at relates to the attendance allowance received for care foillowing a broken hip some 5 years ago. Her carer was my sister but she was never paid and until I can speak to her do not know whether it is considered a debt from mums estate or that she just didn't like to ask for it? It seems that her incapacity, she was pretty much housebound meant she spent very little anyway so the money simply built up. Again she probably thought she'd give it to my sister but never got round to it. Can this be taken into account at this late stage of events?
Finally the £20k has been distributed according to the will but a property is yet to be sold. Can the DWP demand immediate return of any monies owed or can we hold them off until the house is sold?
Mum died aged 82 at end of last year.
Dept Work & Pensions say she had too much money (£20k) at the time of her death and are looking to get returned payments.
We've not got a great problem with this but as Mum had been widowed since the age of 50 and had struggled to make ends meet have been looking at how she accumulated the savings.
One area relates to her recieving back payment of some £2-3k for income support and attendance allowance following a claim that was turned down but later found to be within her entitlement. She probably saw this as money owed for the preceding years of hardship and it was her desire to avoid debts that meant she didn't have to spend it and subsequently stuck it in the bank. In other words her financial position would not have been compromised had she received it as per her entitlement on a weekly basis at which time she would have been able to spend it.
Another area we are looking at relates to the attendance allowance received for care foillowing a broken hip some 5 years ago. Her carer was my sister but she was never paid and until I can speak to her do not know whether it is considered a debt from mums estate or that she just didn't like to ask for it? It seems that her incapacity, she was pretty much housebound meant she spent very little anyway so the money simply built up. Again she probably thought she'd give it to my sister but never got round to it. Can this be taken into account at this late stage of events?
Finally the £20k has been distributed according to the will but a property is yet to be sold. Can the DWP demand immediate return of any monies owed or can we hold them off until the house is sold?
0
Comments
-
Attendance allowance goes to the claimant and they do not have to be paying a carer to receive it - it is up to them how they spend it, so you have no chance of recouping that.
As for the savings, your mother went over the limit and she would have signed paperwork to say she didn't have savings - that's fraud. She may not even have been entitled to all the back payment in the first place!
Tbh I can't understand why you don't just repay it and be at least thankful your mum gained from the extra income without being prosecuted for fraud!
It never ceases to amaze me how people try and grab money after a death!0 -
Attendance allowance goes to the claimant and they do not have to be paying a carer to receive it - it is up to them how they spend it, so you have no chance of recouping that.
As for the savings, your mother went over the limit and she would have signed paperwork to say she didn't have savings - that's fraud. She may not even have been entitled to all the back payment in the first place!
Tbh I can't understand why you don't just repay it and be at least thankful your mum gained from the extra income without being prosecuted for fraud!
It never ceases to amaze me how people try and grab money after a death!
Yeah, damn Funeral Directors
0 -
If she had a large back payment of IS, what was she living on during the period when this should have been received?0
-
I have never been able to get my head round this one.
If someone lives on a pittance and saves both the back payment of a means tested benefit and manages to save a considerable amount from future means tested benefits, they are penalised because they have saved it.
What you must remember is that this money is what the government says is the minimum that they need to live on.
So by being frugal, she then loses the right to further means tested benefits because she has this money put aside.
Until she spends it, and tries to avoid the 'deprivation rules' by not giving this unwanted means tested money to relatives, she is caught up in a vicious circle. Save some, lose the benefit, spend the savings, save some, lose the benefit etc etc.
As for deprivation. If she had given it away week by week leaving nothing in the bank at the end of the week, she would never be stopped from receiving more of it.
Maybe that is the answer, get rid of it in any way possible as fast as it comes in. Save it, and you lose out.
Being that it is means tested benefit money, it should never be treated as capital to refuse future payments. This is going way too far.
That is unless the government see it as a way of clawing it back as if she can save out of it, she must be getting too much for her needs!
And they say that saving is the responsible thing to do - b u l l s h i t !!0 -
Thankyou BestSpud for your input. It amazes me how people jump to conclusions without reading a post in it's entirety:beer:
The reason the DWP are asking questions, or in this case sent a letter which was received 20 minutes before posting, is because the information put on the Probate form was accurate. Sorry to dissapoint you.
That you should suggest my mother was guilty of fraud suggests that you walk a righteous path in complete charge of your faculties which I hope serve you well into old age or past your 13th birthday;)
You clearly chose to miss the opening sentence of my post which stated that we have no great problem with this and that we are trying to make sense of a situation that has arisen through extremely sad circumstances.
Further investigation tells us that she did indeed come to an agreement with my sister to pay her for looking after her and that she put the attendance money aside, which in hindsight was a foolish not fraudulent move.
The benefits payments were right and proper by anybodies moral or legal compass. She had no support whatsoever following the death of my father and received no benefits for 25 years despite at 75 years of age having great difficulty following operations on her hands when it took 2 years to get any financial assistance.
Not asking questions regarding the outfall from this situation would be a disservice to Mums good natured intentions. Fortunately for our family and unfortunately for your embittered views we have little requirement for the 3-4 thousand that may need to be repaid so grabbing money after a death is not at the forefront of our minds. That said it would go some way to filling the tank of the £80k sports car i've just bought or as a downpayment on a second Caribbean cruise.
Have a nice day:D0 -
Oldernotwiser wrote: »If she had a large back payment of IS, what was she living on during the period when this should have been received?
She lived a meagre existence and family helped where they could or were allowed to.:(
What do you say when your mothers wearing 3 jumpers to keep warm and hasn't spent her winter fuel payment as she wants to leave some money for her grandkids?0 -
She lived a meagre existence and family helped where they could or were allowed to.:(
What do you say when your mothers wearing 3 jumpers to keep warm and hasn't spent her winter fuel payment as she wants to leave some money for her grandkids?
You say thank goodness she managed to hide her savings from the authorities and have more coming in every week!0 -
Thankyou BestSpud for your input. It amazes me how people jump to conclusions without reading a post in it's entirety:beer:
The reason the DWP are asking questions, or in this case sent a letter which was received 20 minutes before posting, is because the information put on the Probate form was accurate. Sorry to dissapoint you.
That you should suggest my mother was guilty of fraud suggests that you walk a righteous path in complete charge of your faculties which I hope serve you well into old age or past your 13th birthday;)
You clearly chose to miss the opening sentence of my post which stated that we have no great problem with this and that we are trying to make sense of a situation that has arisen through extremely sad circumstances.
Further investigation tells us that she did indeed come to an agreement with my sister to pay her for looking after her and that she put the attendance money aside, which in hindsight was a foolish not fraudulent move.
The benefits payments were right and proper by anybodies moral or legal compass. She had no support whatsoever following the death of my father and received no benefits for 25 years despite at 75 years of age having great difficulty following operations on her hands when it took 2 years to get any financial assistance.
Not asking questions regarding the outfall from this situation would be a disservice to Mums good natured intentions. Fortunately for our family and unfortunately for your embittered views we have little requirement for the 3-4 thousand that may need to be repaid so grabbing money after a death is not at the forefront of our minds. That said it would go some way to filling the tank of the £80k sports car i've just bought or as a downpayment on a second Caribbean cruise.
Have a nice day:D
Ignorance isn't a defence and it was fraud if your mother failed to declare her savings. You may not want to think that, but she failed to declare how much she had in her savings account and the questions are very clear and specific.
It makes no difference that she put money by for your sister - that should have been paid at the time and your sister ought to have taken this up with your mother at the time. No point going on about it now.
The income support back payment was £2-3k but the total savings is £20k?
Hardly capital that is only saved from a benefit back payment then!! Fact is, with £17-18k in the bank, your mother may well not have been entitled to the IS back payment she received.
You are trying to keep all you can but your mother committed fraud and it should be repaid.
Sorry if that isn't what you want to hear.0 -
She lived a meagre existence and family helped where they could or were allowed to.:(
What do you say when your mothers wearing 3 jumpers to keep warm and hasn't spent her winter fuel payment as she wants to leave some money for her grandkids?
I tell my Mum to put the heating on if it is cold, the winter fuel payments are to help with winter fuel costs, the grandkids have parents and have a life of their own ahead of them, so no need to sacrifice her own well being :cool:0 -
Benefits are set on the basis of the receipient getting the minimum they require to live without falling into poverty. It is a set amount for everyone, but of course, depending on circumstances, what ones require is not going to be what an other require. The reality is that for the life your mother chose to live, either because she required very little or because you and rest of the family were providing for her, she accrued money that she didn't NEED. It is therefore morally right that this money should go back to the government purse to redistribute to those who are in need.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.1K Spending & Discounts
- 244.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards