Deceased mother didn't declare all her savings!

diolch

FBaby wrote: »

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.

No you have that totally wrong! LEGALLY saving it precludes her from any future benefits, MORALLY it should be excluded from the capital rule by virtue of what the payment is.

Taking your view as to what you would like to see happen, is that those for one reason or another are fearful of spending this money which was paid to sustain the very basic of living should return it to the government as it is seen to be too much for her needs?
Just have a think where that could land us? Everybody on a means tested income being asked to account for how every penny is spent on the off chance that it is more than they personally need to survive.

What you are saying is - never save because it will cause you to lose future benefits. You are condoning irresponsible spending of a means tested income.

To be honest most of us could survive on very little money.
Grow your own, eat meat/fish that nature provides for free, make your own clothing from handouts, cook over a fire using locally sourced wood that costs nothing.

And as someone previously asked - how did she accumulate £20,000. Simple really. 5 years of minimum AA (which she saved to be paid to her daughter for the help she gave looking after her) is close to £12,000 + back pay of IS/AA £3,000 + saving out of IS of £20pw over 5 years = £5,000.

You call her a fool to save it, conversly you agree that she should have spent everything that came in. Is that really a responsible attitude?

I am aware of two similar cases within my own family. One where he hasn't spent a penny of his Old Age Pension since first receiving it 22 years ago - £160,000. He has paid for that out of contributions from working for 44 years, yet you say it should be handed back! and the other lives on a small holding, grows what they need, kills what they need, provides for their own electricity, uses parafin to cook on, uses wood to heat the house and obtains clothing at bootsales for next to nothing. They save over 80% of their Pension Credit payments

FBaby

You got me wrong. She shouldn't have been spending it all just because she could, she should not have receive so much so she could either spend it on things she didn't need (essentiels) or save. Many people who work hard and contribute large amount of NI are not in a position to save money. Very soon, I will be losing child benefits because I earn too much and the governement say that I don't need it and shouldn't be able to save this money for my childen's benefit when they are older.... Same principle....

Beltup

bestpud wrote: »

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.

Again, a failure to read and understand my earlier post:T

Unfortunately, or fortunately whichever way you want to look at things our family was not steeped in knowledge about Tax avoidance and the best way to disseminate one's wealth prior to death, an area that many a smart alec prides themselves in;)

Of course with hindsight my sister should have taken what was due but it didn't pan out that way and I hope that in later years you will have a greater understanding of the difficulties of dealing sensitively with a parent as they reach an age where death is on the horizon and the biggest concern is how to pay for one's funeral.

The build up of savings accrued following a broken hip.... (I'm getting a weird sense of deja vu that i posted that earlier;))...and an overnight reduction in mums ability to get out and about and enjoy life.

Again, do you not think it right and proper that one should recognise the dying wishes of a parent and ask the relevant questions before facing the DWP or should we just doff our caps and accept what ever we are told without reply?

Beltup

DUTR wrote: »

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:

/

Absolutely, but what do you do if she doesn't?:cool:

Beltup

FBaby wrote: »

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.

Benefits are means tested and after 25 years without support Mum was assessed and deemed eligible to receive the appropriate payments. If you are suggesting that by any normal parameters she was paid too much then you are wrong, unless of course you believe the payment system is awash with funding and dishes it out willy nilly.

In another post you mention child support and are, I would imagine, wrapping your child in a swadling cloth tied up with string, brushing your teeth with plain water and no toothpaste, crossing the road when you pass McDonalds, cancelling Christmas and increasing the length of time between boiler services just so that you too can take the moral high ground and return money to the government for re-distribution to those in genuine need such as the homelss?

Oh your'e not, now there's a surprise:D:T;)

wearside_2

Unfortunately your mum is not in the minority. I have come across dozens of pensioners in similar positions to hers. They receive Retirement Pension, Income Support/Pension Credit and attendance Allowance. For whatever reason they do not spend it but put it in the bank. They never think to get a taxi to the shops instead of the bus, or buy a new fridge when the old one is playing up etc.

Obiously from what you say, your mum was not a 'fraudster' but someone from the 'old School' who believed in putting money away for a rainy day, which sadly for her did not arrive before she died.

catfish50

wearside wrote: »

Unfortunately your mum is not in the minority. I have come across dozens of pensioners in similar positions to hers. They receive Retirement Pension, Income Support/Pension Credit and attendance Allowance. For whatever reason they do not spend it but put it in the bank. They never think to get a taxi to the shops instead of the bus, or buy a new fridge when the old one is playing up etc.

Obiously from what you say, your mum was not a 'fraudster' but someone from the 'old School' who believed in putting money away for a rainy day, which sadly for her did not arrive before she died.

I partly agree. Benefit rules can be confusing, and it's second nature to think you should try to save money, if you've been brought up that way. There could be any number of reasons that the OP's mum decided that the questions about savings didn't apply in her case. It seems to me it's just one of many things that may be affected as people get older. If family are around, they can help by helping the person to fill in the assessment form correctly.

But after all, the money is going to be recouped, so no harm done. OP, I would ring them up and ask them how to request that the repayment be deferred until the property is sold. It's probably a question they've been asked before more than once.

margaretclare

Some of the payments described are means-tested and some are not.

Basic state pension is not means-tested but is taxable. Pension credit is means-tested. Attendance Allowance is not means-tested and not taxable.

Your sister could have claimed carer's allowance on the basis of looking after your mother. That's a separate benefit which would have been paid to your sister, not to your mother. There are many other things that AA can be spent on to assist in making life more comfortable, things that the recipient can't do for herself.

Pepzofio

Are you sure your mum was on Income Support and not Pension Credit? As based on her age she should have been on Pension Credit which has more generous rules surrounding savings. For a start there is no upper limit and the income tariff is £1 per £500 (or part thereof) above the savings threshold.

Working on the figures you've given above of an initial £3k lump sum, then weekly savings of lower rate AA + £20 I make it about £3k owed, based on exactly 5 years of saving and accruing just shy of £20k in this time. It's hard to be exact without knowing exactly when the claim started & ended, but roughly speaking it would have taken approx 1 year to reach the £6k threshold then the tariff reduction would have increased by £1/wk every 7-8 weeks.

Do you know if they ever asked your mother to fill out a renewal form/reviewed her claim circumstances? If not, did she receive anything explicitly telling her she had to inform them if her savings went over £6k? As presumably she would not have considered it a change of circumstances, given that the savings were steadily increasing week on week. If the answer to both of these questions is 'no', then it might be worth questioning the overpayment.

Also, AA is not treated as income for means tested benefits, but I have no idea whether it is also disregarded when calculating capital if it accrues in the bank. It might be worth exploring this, as if it could be shown that £xxxx of the savings were AA you could argue that this should not be treated as capital. (**Disclaimer: I have no idea whether this would work - it probably won't - but worth asking.**)

pipkin71

Beltup wrote: »

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?

Hopefully you will have told your mum to turn the heat up as the grandchildren do not need her winter fuel payment, given the luxurious childhood they are living anyway.

Had your mum not wanted to listen to that, you would have hopefully turned the heat up and paid her heating bill for her, given the luxurious life you are currently living