Deceased mother didn't declare all her savings!

KimYeovil

margaretclare wrote: »

[blah blah blah]
So do not talk silly to me about how little we could live on, just so that we could 'spoil the offspring and leave a little when we go'.

You seem to be missing the point. A couple in their fifties are expected to live on £100 per week. Nothing magical happens when they hit their sixties. The doubling that happens then (trebling soon) is hardly necessary for the vast majority.

DUTR

Beltup wrote: »

You miss the point. You said you would tell her to put the heating on, I said what if she doesn't do so and accrues the harsh weather payment. You may be able to bully your mother into doing so, it's not a route we chose to take.

Why do you pose the last sentence as a question to me.:eek: Many people do not put the heating on, boil water in kettles etc., as has been posted earlier. Try reading them, it might make my posts more lucid.;)

It seems we have misunderstood each other's posts, my parents do put the heating on when required and would choose that option over putting on jumpers and saving a few quid for the grandchildren.
If they do not survive us (the chldren) and leave nothing we will still love them as much as we do now, would rather have them than any amount of money.

margaretclare

diolch wrote: »

They could do! Just save some of your benefit money by reducing your outgoings.

£40 per week and it would take you just 10 years to have £20800!!. Give it a go.

Or maybe you value your benefits more than you do your savings?

I cannot believe that with some cutting back the vast majority of means tested benefit recipients could not manage £40 per week.

'With some cutting back'. You've already outlined the things you regard as unnecessary. However, all I've ever read about poverty talks of 'what people around you expect to have' and if you live among people who, for example, all go on holiday, then you feel socially-excluded if you don't do so. I was in the hairdresser's yesterday listening to an obviously- older woman talk about her Christmas in Malta. From what she said, I gathered that she goes there every Christmas. Sitting round the pool in lovely weather, she said, whereas DH and I were enjoying the almost Alpine scenery in the Belgian Ardennes.

I assume that the hairdresser is off limits in this poverty scenario too! Reminds me of what Rowntree originally wrote about poverty a century ago. He talked of not being able to write a letter because you couldn't afford a stamp.

My grandmother knew all about poverty but she also believed strongly that there was no need to 'look poor' as she put it. How you appeared was important to her.

I am deeply thankful that I no longer have to live in poverty. After a long working life I've earned my own pensions. I believe that everyone has the right to live as they want to live so long as they live honestly and do not harm anyone else. That includes not defrauding the taxpayer.

margaretclare

KimYeovil wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. A couple in their fifties are expected to live on £100 per week. Nothing magical happens when they hit their sixties. The doubling that happens then (trebling soon) is hardly necessary for the vast majority.

Diolch specifically mentioned 'a couple in their 70s'.

When DH and I were in our 50s we were still working.

PeterZ_2

diolch wrote: »

Well the OP's mum managed it and I have already proven that someone over 65 who only gets means tested income could possibly save £100 per week!!

Then of course it depends what is more important, having a comfortable life on £200 pension credit a week or living frugally on £100 per week but saving the other £100!!

What would you choose?

To say that if they can save they must be being paid too much is a bit silly. You might as well say that if someone who just gets the OAP and can save £25 per week of it is also getting too much. That person has worked for that pension.

And how can you define who is getting too much? claw it back from those that save some, but let the others keep it as they spend every penny of each week? Think before you spout such c r a p!!

Benefits are different to pensions. If the majority of people on benefits (not pensions!) can save money each week then its obvious they are beign paid too much.

Why should I work 5 days a week and pay tax so that people on benefits can end up with £20k of my money in their bank?

I have no problem with people on pensions being able to save, but benefits are a different matter. You should think before you spout such c r a p!!

PeterZ_2

Beltup wrote: »

In your first reply to my opening post you accused my mother of fraud the dictionary definition of which is 'deceit, trickery, sharp practice' . In the broadest sense, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain.

Your mother did make personal gain from not declaring the savings.

Only your mother will know if it was intentional or not, but one thing is for sure, the DWP dont know and I'll bet they hear "It was a mistake" all day long.

I'm afraid that when the state are involved (benefits and tax) ignorance is not an excuse. It's very harsh and many people fall foul, but unfortunately it has to be that way.

PeterZ_2

Beltup wrote: »

I take umbridge at the use of the term fraudster when directed at my recently deceased mother by people who have no greater knowledge, set against our puzzlement as to how this situation arose.

Knowhere have I suggested that repayment of any money paid without entitlement is a problem. I don't need the money.

What I take exception to is that forums such as this direct people to gift money to their children (irrespective of whether they need it) in order to avoid capital gains, prior to death which is nothing more than tax avoidance wearing a different cloak. In contrast it seems fine to condemn an elderly widow for not playing the same game and prior to any solid information being available. Thus far we have simply received a letter from the DWP requesting bank statements.

You say that you have no problem paying the money back, but it sounds to me like you are looking for reasons not to - just my opinion.

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal and people do it all the time. I'll bet that you have done it yourself at some point, most people have. This very website has a section all about tax avoidence:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22

Take a look at some of the posts there, its full of people looking to avoid tax.

bestpud

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.

margaretclare

PeterZ wrote: »

Benefits are different to pensions. If the majority of people on benefits (not pensions!) can save money each week then its obvious they are being paid too much.

Why should I work 5 days a week and pay tax so that people on benefits can end up with £20k of my money in their bank?

I have no problem with people on pensions being able to save, but benefits are a different matter. You should think before you spout such c r a p!!

I totally agree.

It has been assumed that DH and I, in our 70s, are on means-tested benefits. Far from it. We're still taxpayers!

Sixer

KimYeovil wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. A couple in their fifties are expected to live on £100 per week. Nothing magical happens when they hit their sixties. The doubling that happens then (trebling soon) is hardly necessary for the vast majority.

This isn't quite true, Kim. Couples JSA is £100ish, yes - but implicit in the benefits system is that people can't really live on this on a permanent basis. This is why disability benefit and pension credit rates are higher. Implicit in the couples JSA amount is that it is intended to tide people over, providing bare necessities only, for a temporary crisis period (joblessness) in their lives.

People on permanent set incomes - the retired and the disabled - who are not expected to work, get more. This is because the underlying expenses of ongoing life - home maintenance, replacing clothes, yadda - aren't do-able on £100 a week for couple for ever 'n ever 'n ever.