Deceased mother didn't declare all her savings!

Beltup

FBaby wrote: »

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.

What a pointless response. Many others have contributed to this thread to bring it to 5 pages and you've clearly been reading it. Why don't you try and bring every other thread to a halt as well?;):T

Beltup

PeterZ wrote: »

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.

Yes, and we are in the position of trying to explain the situation. DWP have requested bank statements and will I assume do a simple calculation before presenting us with a figure for overpayment. Simples...

However...
I didn't know and still don't know whether we are expected to give guidance and explanation based on our beliefs, i.e. that sum on that statement appears to be a back payment she received or whether we simply hand over the information as requested and see what happens.

We don't yet know if Mum dropped in and out of the eligibility zone or simply surpassed the limit.

HOLIDAYMAD_2

The answer is pretty simple, DWP are not the sharpest out there, they will send some demands to her estate for the overpayment, and if they get paid so be it. if they dont they will need to enforce the debt but this will be hard if the person is now deceased. Different perhaps if there was a property as they could secure a charge.
They are not going to prosecute her estate, unless they can prove someone else was involved from that estate.

It is a pointless execercise in showing she was frugal, of course she was frugal she saved her benefit money, benefit money is for whatever purpose it needs to be spent or not on. it can be spent on marks and spencers shopping to going into a brothel, im not being flippant, but this country gives assistance to those that need it what they do with it is up to them.

Very common with the elderly to withhold savings.
Prob the most common after living together fraud.

However on a new claim form it does ask the question , and they are no longer bland , ie do you have any savings this means from 1 pound, how many accounts, pensions etc , name of account , bank etc .

If she was actually honest when she completed the original form but saved up thereafter that is what is called a change of circumstance did she ever get asked to do a review.

Its not the DWP responsibility to get her to advise of a change , she states that in her original declaration but the legislation for criminal proceedings is very different to a totally false claim from the outset to a failure to advise of a change
But she is deceased they are not going to prosecute her.

How did they find out , i suspect from there monthly matching exercises all banks and building societys, bonds etc release monthly information on tax gained from savings been around for a good 10 years now, the intrest will tell the DWP roughly the amount of savings held, so normally in the past financial year .

And you cant explain the suitation unless you aided the deception, so id accept what they say unless you can prove otherwise.

But demand they obtain all her statements for the periods in question as they can and will if they can be bothered.

lastly her capacity may be questioned to see if anyone else aided the deception did she pay the money in herself, classic is daughter writes all the letters answers all the calls from the benefit agency knows why and what mum is getting, paying in book from getting the IS or pension from the post office shows daughter paid it in. now that is deception and aiding .

clemmatis

there is a property, holidaymad:

Beltup wrote: »

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?

Hawkeye4aneye

Beltup wrote: »

Yes, and we are in the position of trying to explain the situation. DWP have requested bank statements and will I assume do a simple calculation before presenting us with a figure for overpayment. Simples...

However...
I didn't know and still don't know whether we are expected to give guidance and explanation based on our beliefs, i.e. that sum on that statement appears to be a back payment she received or whether we simply hand over the information as requested and see what happens.

We don't yet know if Mum dropped in and out of the eligibility zone or simply surpassed the limit.

I think you have to hand over the bank statements and they will calculate when mum exceeded the eligibility and by how much and as the totals change the amount overpaid will change. I remember in one of the cases I dealt with the lists they sent in was in spreadsheet format so I imagine they have a pre-worked formula which they put the figures in and the computer kicks out a resulting schedule that you then check before making payment (or agree to pay once the property is sold).

Not sure they will want explanations about where additional funds came from as long as they were not in mums name elsewhere.

Bunter_2

Beltup wrote: »

Yes, and we are in the position of trying to explain the situation. DWP have requested bank statements and will I assume do a simple calculation before presenting us with a figure for overpayment. Simples...

It may not be as simple as you believe. Sometimes assessments (over a period of time) can be complicated as savings fluctuate and careful calculations have to be made. It might not affect the over all "ball park" figure, but they have to get the detail right.

However...
I didn't know and still don't know whether we are expected to give guidance and explanation based on our beliefs, i.e. that sum on that statement appears to be a back payment she received or whether we simply hand over the information as requested and see what happens.

I have read you preceding posts carefully and it is clear (to me) that you have little or no idea how the present circumstances have arisen. I dont think you have much to offer the DWP with regard to "guidance".

We don't yet know if Mum dropped in and out of the eligibility zone or simply surpassed the limit.

In other words you know nothing. Dont mean to sound rude but it may very well be that this is all a mistake and nothing is owed to the DWP.

I would strongly advise you to see a benefits advisor who can look at this and get to the bottom of it. Believe me, the DWP can get things very very wrong. Do not admit to or agree to any overpayments of benefits until you have been advised by a benefits advisor to do so. Of course you must submit all documents to the DWP, as requested.

One mistake you have made is in distributing the assets before clearing up the claims on the estate. I realize of course that this claim may have been a total surprise but I thought the DWP were quicker off the mark when it came to claiming probate assets.

Just to repeat, nothing you have said suggests that this is anything more than a misunderstanding, either on your mothers part or on the part of the DWP.

Good Luck.

rogerblack

diolch wrote: »

???? 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.
!

Having savings reduces your benefit entitlement - yes.

It does not eliminate it.
To take a simpler case of someone on ESA only, at 100/week, who is saving 25/week, and neglecting rate rises or interest.
After 5 years or so, they're at 6K (or of course they can start at this).

Their benefit entitlement reduces by 1 pound/week for every 250 over 6K.

If they continue to spend at the same rate, and put what is not spent in savings, and notify the DWP every week.
At the 11th week, they're putting away 24/week, and have savings of 6270.
At the 26th week, it's 22.60 and 6618.
At the 52nd week, 20/7175
At the 104th week - 8130
At the 106th week - 8900.
In the 174th week - 9150, and their savings rate has halved.
Week 350 - 10.7K, ...

HOLIDAYMAD_2

ok , sorry there is a house i must have missed that bit.

But in theory and i do know what im on aboutm is the following.

1. mum is aged 82 at death. she prob built these savings and prob hadnt had a review claim for some years if ever, so her intentions were prob not dishonest.
2. Back dated awards can add up savings quite quickly. what she did with the AA etc is not there buisness.
3. Prob dealing with a jobs worth, in time it will get get passed back and forth and prob forgotten there is no gain in pursuing this really robustly by DWP,
4. The estate must demand to see all the evidence DWP gather should they dispute any overpayment, a full disregard is 9k- 16k dep on the benefit ie income support differs to council tax benefit.
5. A charging order can be disputed the County Court is unlikley to award one unless its really challenged by the DWP.
6. its likley at the worst to be deemed a benefit overpayment opposed to fraud. ie claimaint error.
7. to get a charging order , legal would have to be advised, they have just been cut to the bone. They IMo are highly unlikley to really pursue this
8. They will play on the deceased families for the overpayment.

id relax and put the ownness to the DWP to qualify there decision making.

diolch

HOLIDAYMAD wrote: »

ok , sorry there is a house i must have missed that bit.

But in theory and i do know what im on aboutm is the following.

1. mum is aged 82 at death. she prob built these savings and prob hadnt had a review claim for some years if ever, so her intentions were prob not dishonest.
2. Back dated awards can add up savings quite quickly. what she did with the AA etc is not there buisness.
3. Prob dealing with a jobs worth, in time it will get get passed back and forth and prob forgotten there is no gain in pursuing this really robustly by DWP,
4. The estate must demand to see all the evidence DWP gather should they dispute any overpayment, a full disregard is 9k- 16k dep on the benefit ie income support differs to council tax benefit.
5. A charging order can be disputed the County Court is unlikley to award one unless its really challenged by the DWP.
6. its likley at the worst to be deemed a benefit overpayment opposed to fraud. ie claimaint error.
7. to get a charging order , legal would have to be advised, they have just been cut to the bone. They IMo are highly unlikley to really pursue this
8. They will play on the deceased families for the overpayment.

id relax and put the ownness to the DWP to qualify there decision making.

Absolutely. It is for them to make a claim, which the executor can then dispute. If I was the executor, I would make their life a misery with arguments as to why the amount is wrong. Keep up the pressure and they will eventually agree to something at worst or drop the matter at best. Never give in to them. There is nothing they can do about the matter other than keep trying to convince the executor that they are right. They can't prosecute, they can't even stop any future benefit payments. If they really wanted to be difficult they might start threatening to take legal action to recover the debt. So what, at the end of the day they and they alone are responsible to prove their debt to the satisfaction of the executor. If that is what they want to do OK, let a Judge decide what the debt is. But you can guarantee they will not take it that far. I have known cases that have gone on for years. Play hardball and see who buckles first.
I have even known a creditor fall foul of a time limit imposed by the executor by not submitting a proper proof of debt. 'Out of time' he shouted! you get nothing!

Mojisola

diolch wrote: »

Absolutely. It is for them to make a claim, which the executor can then dispute. If I was the executor, I would make their life a misery with arguments as to why the amount is wrong. Keep up the pressure and they will eventually agree to something at worst or drop the matter at best. Never give in to them. There is nothing they can do about the matter other than keep trying to convince the executor that they are right. They can't prosecute, they can't even stop any future benefit payments. If they really wanted to be difficult they might start threatening to take legal action to recover the debt. So what, at the end of the day they and they alone are responsible to prove their debt to the satisfaction of the executor. If that is what they want to do OK, let a Judge decide what the debt is. But you can guarantee they will not take it that far. I have known cases that have gone on for years. Play hardball and see who buckles first.
I have even known a creditor fall foul of a time limit imposed by the executor by not submitting a proper proof of debt. 'Out of time' he shouted! you get nothing!

For what might be, at most, 3k out of a house sale? Life is too short!