Deceased mother didn't declare all her savings!

Oldernotwiser

Beltup wrote: »

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;)
we just doff our caps and accept what ever we are told without reply?

If your mother had "wealth" to leave, she shouldn't have been receiving Income Support and, actually, I can't see anything you've written that would imply that she was eligible for this.

diolch

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.

The government have set a figure that they calculate a person of that age needs in order not to fall into poverty and to be able to sustain life at a fairly low level. If by living well below that level for one reason or another, does not mean that she is being overpaid benefits! As I have said before a couple say aged 70 COULD if they wished, be able to live on less than £100 per week. The government say that the minimum they need to survive is £202.40 per week. In that example, they could well have savings of over £100 per week. Many many people of this age group as well as below it and above it, do actually manage to live on a lot less than the amount the government say they need.
That does not mean to say that they are being overpaid benefits - it means that they can live a lot cheaper than most of us would accept as being acceptable in this day and age.
Most wouldn't want to live that type of life. Many would want to enjoy central heating, many would want to get out and about, many would not want to dress in third hand clothing.
For you to suggest that she was overpaid benefits is an insult to an old lady that lived far far more frugally than you would even consider doing! Would you live to the level of what benefits provide for or would you choose to live far below what is acceptable to most people?
Besides which, given your circumstances I would imagine that you have no idea what it is like to live to such a low standard of living.

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....

Maybe you can't save out of your income as you don't understand how to budget properly, look at an alternative lifestyle or do without the many things that most accept today as being a 'requirement'!

FBaby

diolch wrote: »

That does not mean to say that they are being overpaid benefits - it means that they can live a lot cheaper than most of us would accept as being acceptable in this day and age.
Most wouldn't want to live that type of life. Many would want to enjoy central heating, many would want to get out and about, many would not want to dress in third hand clothing.
For you to suggest that she was overpaid benefits is an insult to an old lady that lived far far more frugally than you would even consider doing! Would you live to the level of what benefits provide for or would you choose to live far below what is acceptable to most people?
Besides which, given your circumstances I would imagine that you have no idea what it is like to live to such a low standard of living.

There are two situations: 1- the OP's mother was managing to live well with what she was receiving, but because she had less needs than what the government considers essential, was able to put that money aside to benefit her children after passing away. That money is not to make profit off or increase inheritance, it is to be used for the care of the person receiving it.
2- the OP didn't get more than she required for her needs, but compromised her needs to put money aside to benefit her children. If that is the case, how can the family let it happen? Surely any caring children would not let their parent without central heating if they had the money to afford it so they could put money aside.

If my mother/grand mother was living in a standard below what the governement considers minimum to live on, so that they could save for myself and siblings, i would be horrified and would make sure she spent her money for her well-being... T

scotty1971

is there a possibilty she just signed whatever papers she got regarding benefits and not read them,as you said she was quite old and might not have understood the jargon that these forms use to confuse people,especially at her age,just put the £20,000 on the favourite for the grand national this weekend

dmg24

scotty1971 wrote: »

is there a possibilty she just signed whatever papers she got regarding benefits and not read them,as you said she was quite old and might not have understood the jargon that these forms use to confuse people,especially at her age,just put the £20,000 on the favourite for the grand national this weekend

What a stupid thing to say - you do realise that the executor would still be liable?

scotty1971

dmg24 wrote: »

What a stupid thing to say - you do realise that the executor would still be liable?

:rotfl:one born every minute!!:rotfl:

Mojisola

Pepzofio wrote: »

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.**)

I think capital is capital - it doesn't matter where it's come from.

It's a shame your Mum lived such a frugal life when the money was coming in to provide for her needs.

After my parents were given some health benefits, they couldn't believe that the extra money was theirs. It took three phone calls to the DWP before they were convinced that the money was theirs to spend as they needed.

diolch

FBaby wrote: »

There are two situations: 1- the OP's mother was managing to live well with what she was receiving, but because she had less needs than what the government considers essential, was able to put that money aside to benefit her children after passing away. That money is not to make profit off or increase inheritance, it is to be used for the care of the person receiving it.
2- the OP didn't get more than she required for her needs, but compromised her needs to put money aside to benefit her children. If that is the case, how can the family let it happen? Surely any caring children would not let their parent without central heating if they had the money to afford it so they could put money aside.

If my mother/grand mother was living in a standard below what the governement considers minimum to live on, so that they could save for myself and siblings, i would be horrified and would make sure she spent her money for her well-being... T

If you read all of the OP's posts you will find that option 2 applies. Of course she compromised her needs (well the needs that the government says she has V those that the OP's mother thought she had.
As has been said already on here by another poster that this is not al all unusual. I sometimes think that a large proportion of this country's population have no idea what actually happens with the older generation.
Take my mother - God rest her soul, she and my father had sufficient income to do almost anything they wished. My mum always wanted to fly on Concorde, but she didn't (she could have afforded it!) she could have afforded a holiday anywhere, but they did neither. Instead they went on the odd 3 day coach holiday to a tatty 1* B&B in the cheapest season - mid winter!
Why? Because they could not justify spending money on one thing when there was always a cheaper option.

My mum could have afforded designer clothes, yet she went to jumble sales and altered them to fit. Why? Because she couldn't see the need to pay a fortune for a dress, when she could buy one cheaply and change it.
She and my father would not put on the central heating. They considered that the coal fire in the main room was more then needed. Many a time I have seen my mum boil the kettle for some hot water to wash up in.

diolch

dmg24 wrote: »

What a stupid thing to say - you do realise that the executor would still be liable?

I would agree that the executor should not have made any distribution until all and every valid claim and debt has been settled first AND after advertising in the paper to establish that there are no other debts due to be paid or other beneficaries that may come forward.
When I was the administrator of my uncle's estate, what I and the rest of the family thought that a guy called Albert was his cousin turned out to be his half brother!

However given that there is still a large asset to realise, it wouldn't really cause a problem.

diolch

Mojisola wrote: »

I think capital is capital - it doesn't matter where it's come from.

It's a shame your Mum lived such a frugal life when the money was coming in to provide for her needs.

After my parents were given some health benefits, they couldn't believe that the extra money was theirs. It took three phone calls to the DWP before they were convinced that the money was theirs to spend as they needed.

Did they spend it all or maybe they kept a bit back for a rainy day?