Deceased mother didn't declare all her savings!

Marisco

I really cannot understand all this fuss about fraud???? Yes, technically, she was "frauding" the DWP, but I bet she was not aware of it! I know ignorance is no defence, but we are talking about an old lady here, not some ducker and diver who knows the system inside out!! All that needs to be done, is to give the DWP the paperwork, wait for the amount, and pay it back!! Job done!!

diolch

Never experienced in my adult life.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Oh yes I do! And I have made it my goal in life to defend those that are not able to defend themselves.
I have been fortunate, but a day never goes by that I don't think of others that are not as well off. I give to charity to help others at the expense of not enjoying the 'luxuries' that I can afford. I have a conscience that others are suffering in this country.
Poverty, YOU have no idea!!

You don't have to be VERY rich to be still paying tax in retirement!!

No, but between you you have to be in receipt of over £360 per week (£19,000pa) of taxable income nothwithstanding any non taxable benefits you are receiving BEFORE you pay tax!! Many over 65's could only guess at how you can manage to spend that level of income.

Marisco

diolch wrote: »

In which case he must be receiving taxable income - not including any benefits, of over £182 per week for a single peron. A fortune to some considering that the amount you actually need is £132 per week!

He has a small works pension and state pension, he doesn't get benefits. £132 is what the government say you need, not what you need, that will differ for each individual. In the same way that £65 JSA is what the government decide you need to live on. I cannot remember the exact wording now, as it's a while ago since I claimed, but it's something along the lines of " this is what the government have decided you need to live on" They should replace the word "live" with "exist". You can certainly survive on benefits, i.e not starve, but to say live is pushing it!

Beltup

bestpud wrote: »

OP - I get why you don't want to think of your mum committing fraud but if ignorance was a defence, don't you think every (intentional) fraudster would say 'oops, sorry, I didn't know!' and get away with it?

That said, I always agree people should get a full breakdown of the overpayment as they do make mistakes.

However, your first post suggested you are looking at any way out of paying, including talk of your sister being owed the money. That's different from getting a full breakdown and checking it thoroughly.

No I don't think that every intentional fraudster would say oops i'm sorry. A large majority, yes but not everybody. I have faith in human nature and am fortunate to know people who would find a penny on the street and would rather put it in a charity box than their own pocket. My late mother for instance.

My first post done nothing of the sort. In this country we follow a principle in law 'Innocent until proven Guilty' and I sincerely hope that you are never called to be a Juror. I didn't 'talk of my sister being owed money', I stated a fact that it was always mums intention to ensure that she was recompensed and whilst I now accept that such agreements have no bearing on the situation now I didn't know that when opening this thread and you were hasty in your reasoning and subsequent condemnation.:(

clemmatis

Beltup wrote: »

In the grand scheme of things this is only money, 0's on a bit of paper as far as i'm concerned an irrelevance when set against the dissapointment my mother would be feeling if she had for one second believed that her action, or inaction would create a fuss.

and may she rest in peace. I suggest you ensure your sister receives at least the AA money she might have had -- assuming the will did not make extra provision for her anyway.

margaretclare

diolch wrote: »

Oh yes I do! And I have made it my goal in life to defend those that are not able to defend themselves.
I have been fortunate, but a day never goes by that I don't think of others that are not as well off. I give to charity to help others at the expense of not enjoying the 'luxuries' that I can afford. I have a conscience that others are suffering in this country.
Poverty, YOU have no idea!!


No, but between you you have to be in receipt of over £360 per week (£19,000pa) of taxable income notwithstanding any non taxable benefits you are receiving BEFORE you pay tax!! Many over 65's could only guess at how you can manage to spend that level of income.

Between us, in total we receive approx £xx,xxx. Much of this comes from a lifetime at work, a total of almost a century between us. This does NOT make us rich, far from it! According to national statistics it seems to be just about average. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

I explained in an earlier post what we 'spend'. £170 a month each on household bills and the same amount on food and petrol. Total £680 a month equally from each of us, or £156 a week. It is impossible to reduce this because many of the costs are fixed i.e. fuel, water, council tax.

I have also explained that we do not 'spend' all our income. I am still saving.

I don't know about poverty? To say that to a woman who worked for most of her life is an insult. Do you think I would have spent all those years working if there had been any alternative? It was always assumed that I would work after leaving school following 'O' levels, there was never any choice. I grew up in a desperately poor family, and quite the reverse of talking about 'my lady', my mother went out skivvying for some of those 'ladies'. No choice in those days - there were no benefits!

It was the biggest shock being made redundant at the same time as my husband's death. I was 57 then, not as able as I'd been in earlier years, but I had to do what I could. If that is not 'knowing about poverty' then I don't know what is.

In addition, my eldest granddaughter was homeless and jobless a few years ago. I have given her a lot of help, which has been far more use to her than if she had to wait until I die. My other granddaughter has been hit by the recession, and the career she wanted in travel and tourism failed to materialise. She works part-time picking internet grocery orders. I've helped her too, because she was saving for a car - this is cheaper than getting a taxi to work for a 5 am start.

As for DH's family, they're doing fine and need no help. The ancestors of his girls at public school arrived here penniless, running for their lives and in what they stood up in, with only the skills in their hands, their willingness to work and to assimilate.

You give to charity? Well, so do I. So do many others. So what?

FBaby

I don't know where all the fuss is. So your mother decided to live a frugal life and you were fine with her choice. As a result she ended up saving her money, so much that she got to the point of not being entitled to the benefits she continued to receive, because she should have then been spending what she had been saving. Of course that wasn't intentional. You agree that what she wasn't entitled to should be reimbursed, because you agree it was money she wasn't legally entitled to. So you are happy to repay it, you are just concerned as to whether you will be able to repay it after you actually receive it from inheritance. Well, most likely the answer is yes, if not, use an interest free credit card to repay, and pay the balance of the card when you get the money, simple, no need to debate for 5 pages.

rogerblack

FBaby wrote: »

You agree that what she wasn't entitled to should be reimbursed, because you agree it was money she wasn't legally entitled to.

You are allowed to accrue savings of over the 6K/10K/whatever limit on benefits - it will just reduce your benefit.
It's not unreasonable to ask what the position would have been if she'd spent the same every week, informed the DWP of her savings, and put the rest into savings.
These savings would end up considerably over the lower limit.

diolch

rogerblack wrote: »

You are allowed to accrue savings of over the 6K/10K/whatever limit on benefits - it will just reduce your benefit.
It's not unreasonable to ask what the position would have been if she'd spent the same every week, informed the DWP of her savings, and put the rest into savings.
These savings would end up considerably over the lower limit.

???? confused.

Having the savings would reduce her benefit entitlement. She would then be expected to live off the savings until the dropped and then she would be given her benefits back again. No doubt she would continue to save which would mean a further reduction in benefits - it goes on and on.

What I find really hard to believe is that saving part of the means tested benefit means that you will lose entitlement to it in the future until you spend what you have saved. Wierd.

Where is the incentive to save? Never mind where these savings come from.
The answer must be to blow the whole damn lot when you get it as that way you are guaranteed to get another wedge next week!

PeterZ_2

Beltup wrote: »

A nice carve up and separation of the opening sentence to make a point;) Fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain.
I proffer the suggestion that only mother knows if it was intentional and only mother knows if that intent was personal. That she didn't spend the money on herself is proof enough that it wasn't and don't forget, I knew her, you didn't.:mad:

You are correct, I didn't know your mother, nor did DWP. Glad that you agree with me that the only person who knows for sure is your mother.

That's the point I'm trying to make, I'm sure that your mother was an honest lady, but all DWP will see is that she gave them false information.