Deceased mother didn't declare all her savings!

Beltup

I don't think there's any doubt that Mum went some way above the threshold and if mitigating circumstances regarding the saving as opposed to the spending of the Attendance Allowance, Winter payments, back payments etc., are not taken into account then there will be a healthy return to the DWP.

As i've said before, not a problem....

I would still like to know if interest or indexation is calculated when situations such as this arise?

diolch

Mojisola wrote: »

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

It may be, but if I was you and before you make another such a sweeping statement, I would read up on what the responsibilites are of an executor. To just pay a debt without taking sufficient steps to ensure that the (a) the debt exists in the amount that is claimed and (b) that the debt is legally enforceable against the estate, will lead the executor wide open to personal civil proceedings from creditors including the beneficiaries.

Being an executor is something that should never be taken lightly!

I just hope that you are never required to be an executor or administrator with that attitude.

margaretclare

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!

As regards Attendance Allowance, this benefit is non-means-testable and non-taxable, so it is up to the individual what she does with it. It's meant to 'buy in' help for the things that she couldn't do for herself, but if she chose not to, that's up to her. If it was left alone, over time it would add up, and would eventually become 'savings'.

I saw a couple of elderly women at the supermarket yesterday who were waiting for their taxi. They wouldn't have been able to manage their shopping home any other way. That would be a good use for any of those benefits.

As regards pensions income, again it is up to the individual. We don't all live in the same way. People sometimes choose to go on living in houses that are too big for them, because it was the family home and they can't bring themselves to move. Again, it's up to them. I'm thankful that my first husband and I chose to move here in 1990, to a 2-bed 1930s bungalow, because I wouldn't have been able to cope with the 3-storey weaver's cottage we had before that. But others wouldn't want to move and so they have all the problems of maintenance etc.

If you don't spend all your income then inevitably it is going to build up and end up being 'savings'.

For many of us in my generation, saving doesn't need an incentive. Or rather, the incentive is there, hard-wired into us from our earliest years. This is probably because we were born before benefits. Nowadays, it's different. I don't think younger people will ever understand that way of thinking.

My grandmother would have approved of shopping in charity shops because, down-to-earth Yorkshirewoman that she was, she'd have known you can get some darned good bargains, as well as helping the charity. DH's grandmother, who ran for her life from the Russian Revolution, would also have approved. But from all I've heard about both those women, they liked quality products, liked 'good' things that were well-made and would last.

I think the incentive to save is either there, or not there. It can't be acquired. I wish it could, because I think that in principle it's better to save than not to save. No one knows what they might need next week, next month or next year, and the 'wedge' of income that you get next week may not cover e.g. a major repair, a replacement of some domestic appliance, whatever. But I don't think it will come.

diolch

margaretclare wrote: »

As regards Attendance Allowance, this benefit is non-means-testable and non-taxable, so it is up to the individual what she does with it. It's meant to 'buy in' help for the things that she couldn't do for herself, but if she chose not to, that's up to her. If it was left alone, over time it would add up, and would eventually become 'savings'.

I saw a couple of elderly women at the supermarket yesterday who were waiting for their taxi. They wouldn't have been able to manage their shopping home any other way. That would be a good use for any of those benefits.

As regards pensions income, again it is up to the individual. We don't all live in the same way. People sometimes choose to go on living in houses that are too big for them, because it was the family home and they can't bring themselves to move. Again, it's up to them. I'm thankful that my first husband and I chose to move here in 1990, to a 2-bed 1930s bungalow, because I wouldn't have been able to cope with the 3-storey weaver's cottage we had before that. But others wouldn't want to move and so they have all the problems of maintenance etc.

If you don't spend all your income then inevitably it is going to build up and end up being 'savings'.

For many of us in my generation, saving doesn't need an incentive. Or rather, the incentive is there, hard-wired into us from our earliest years. This is probably because we were born before benefits. Nowadays, it's different. I don't think younger people will ever understand that way of thinking.

My grandmother would have approved of shopping in charity shops because, down-to-earth Yorkshirewoman that she was, she'd have known you can get some darned good bargains, as well as helping the charity. DH's grandmother, who ran for her life from the Russian Revolution, would also have approved. But from all I've heard about both those women, they liked quality products, liked 'good' things that were well-made and would last.

I think the incentive to save is either there, or not there. It can't be acquired. I wish it could, because I think that in principle it's better to save than not to save. No one knows what they might need next week, next month or next year, and the 'wedge' of income that you get next week may not cover e.g. a major repair, a replacement of some domestic appliance, whatever. But I don't think it will come.

You seem to have forgotten Pension Credit which is means tested. Not spending that will lead also to savings and eventually a restriction will be placed on how much Pension Credit you get in the future. Save too much, and you are likely to lose the whole benefit.

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!

diolch wrote: »

It may be, but if I was you and before you make another such a sweeping statement, I would read up on what the responsibilites are of an executor. To just pay a debt without taking sufficient steps to ensure that the (a) the debt exists in the amount that is claimed and (b) that the debt is legally enforceable against the estate, will lead the executor wide open to personal civil proceedings from creditors including the beneficiaries.

Being an executor is something that should never be taken lightly!

I just hope that you are never required to be an executor or administrator with that attitude.

There's a huge difference between complying with the legal responsibilities of an executor and wasting money from the estate by starting a vendetta against the DWP.

If, as an executor, you refused to wind up the estate because you were engaged in a personal battle against the authorities, the beneficiaries could ask for you to be removed.

diolch

Mojisola wrote: »

There's a huge difference between complying with the legal responsibilities of an executor and wasting money from the estate by starting a vendetta against the DWP.

If, as an executor, you refused to wind up the estate because you were engaged in a personal battle against the authorities, the beneficiaries could ask for you to be removed.

You are not wasting money from the estate, the executor cannot charge for doing the job, unless he/she is a professional person - solicitor or bank manager who was appointed.

Why and how would the beneficiaries have you removed? For a start, the executor has to be absolutely sure that any demand for a debt is correct. If I was you I would get a law book out of your public library and read up on responsibilities and who can and cannot remove the executor. To have an executor removed because he/she is taking the job seriously and ensuring that the debt is right in every aspect would be laughed out of the High Court.

I took the job on in October 09. The estate is still not wound up as there are two arguments going on. The amount of outstanding Council Tax due and the final payments of OAP/Pension Credit. All in all this adds up to no more than £200. The distribution will not take place until I am satisfied that the figures are right, however long it takes and despite the constant demands from the beneficaries for their pot of money. They will have to wait. And there is no court in this land that can overide my actions as long as I can justify them which I can. I do however have the option to make a partial distribution, which is what I am intending to do.

RuthMarianna

This is an interesting thread as it highlights the problem of living frugally when on a means tested benefit but I just did a calculation for Pension Credit for a single person with £20,000 of savings and £102 a week state pension and they would still be entitled to just over £78 a week Pension Credit after all Pension Credit was set up to not disadvantage those who had been sensible and put some money by.

diolch

RuthMarianna wrote: »

This is an interesting thread as it highlights the problem of living frugally when on a means tested benefit but I just did a calculation for Pension Credit for a single person with £20,000 of savings and £102 a week state pension and they would still be entitled to just over £78 a week Pension Credit after all Pension Credit was set up to not disadvantage those who had been sensible and put some money by.

Not entirely correct. With savings of £20,000, single and the OAP of £102 per week, they would get a total (mix of guaranteed & savings) pension credit of £26 per week. Making their total income £102 + £26 = £128 per week.

With savings of up to £10,000, guaranteed pension credit would be £35 per week making a weekly income of £102 + £35 = £137 per week.

With the extra savings (£20,000 in total) they would lose £9 per week in pension credit.

I still see it as unfair. The OP's mother's income was a mix of State Pension (which she has paid for), Attendance Allowance (to help pay for things due to her disability, and Pension Credit (to make sure that nobody lives in absolute poverty).
Yet because she was very careful how she has spent the money and did without things that most of us would take for granted, she loses £9 per week!!

It's like saying that a single person on JSA(IB) of £65.45 losing £16.00 per week of it because they were able to save £25 per week of it over 7/8 years. Because it is means tested, the £65.45 should be paid in full notwithstanding that they have been able to save from it and live an impoverished life.

It would be different of the savings came from elsewhere of course, but to lose some part of a means tested benefit because you have lived a paupers lifestyle is not fair. It's like they are being penalised for living below the poverty level!

richard9991

RuthMarianna wrote: »

This is an interesting thread as it highlights the problem of living frugally when on a means tested benefit but I just did a calculation for Pension Credit for a single person with £20,000 of savings and £102 a week state pension and they would still be entitled to just over £78 a week Pension Credit after all Pension Credit was set up to not disadvantage those who had been sensible and put some money by.

Surley that calc would be pc saving which is savings a savings benefit not pension credit guerentee which is means tested

diolch

richard9991 wrote: »

Surley that calc would be pc saving which is savings a savings benefit not pension credit guerentee which is means tested

Yes it is a mix of Guaranteed & Savings. See my comments above. The poster has his/her figures a bit out and lacking some info.