Diverting £50k of salary into pension fund to claim welfare benefits

drc

Will the OP have problems once Universal Credit comes in as I understand that tax credits will be means tested (and no longer based on income alone) and if you have savings or possibly equity you might not be entitled to them any more. Is this correct and if so, how would the OP get around that?

atush

jamesd wrote: »

atush, please go and do an internet search on "libel per se". Accuse someone of a criminal offence and it's automatically libel unless you can prove it was done without malice and is true. Really bad practice to do that because it's an invitation to trouble even if you ignore it being obviously offensive to make such a suggestion.

Oh Puleese.

BobQ

jamesd wrote: »

atush, please go and do an internet search on "libel per se". Accuse someone of a criminal offence and it's automatically libel unless you can prove it was done without malice and is true. Really bad practice to do that because it's an invitation to trouble even if you ignore it being obviously offensive to make such a suggestion.

One of the things about libel is that the person allegedly libelled needs to be willing to assert his rights in a court, in the face of the publicity that would ensue.

As to the OP's question. If what he asks is legal, I personally think is morally reprehensible to do such a thing.

ffacoffipawb

drc wrote: »

Will the OP have problems once Universal Credit comes in as I understand that tax credits will be means tested (and no longer based on income alone) and if you have savings or possibly equity you might not be entitled to them any more. Is this correct and if so, how would the OP get around that?

The tax credit award is ring fenced, so your universal credit will never be less than this.

This is reviewable if there is a 'significant change' though.

If no longer entitled, just reduce the pension to a more sebsible level and live on the higher salary. Previous gains from tax credits will be in the bag.

jamesd

atush wrote: »

Oh Puleese.

Please take a look at the top of the page. See the text "Be nice to all MoneySavers". Accusing people of crimes is a pretty gross failure to be nice. Surely you can see that libeling someone is a failure to be nice? After that, a read of the Forum Etiquette page would be nice.

I can understand you disliking this bit of law but that's not sufficient reason to use libelous or non-libelous personal attacks.

BobQ wrote: »

One of the things about libel is that the person allegedly libelled needs to be willing to assert his rights in a court, in the face of the publicity that would ensue.

There are significant practical obstacles to libel claims relating to posts here but there aren't any significant difficulties with the concept that it's a failure to be nice and properly respectful to other posters. I'd hoped that merely pointing out that it was libelous would have it be obvious that the problem was not being nice to others here, not the legal risk, but it seems not.

Personally I take care to avoid libel as well, just as a matter of good practice. I dislike the prospect of finding out the hard way that someone has legal insurance or otherwise deep pockets and is willing to bankrupt me with legal costs because they can. I can use things that aren't personal attacks or libel far more effectively if I want to be critical of someone. On the occasions where I do make posts that are critical of companies with fairly deep pockets I try to do that in cases where MSE itself - which in effect means Martin himself - may be willing to back the case with at least adverse publicity to raise the risk of action.

arteh

At the risk of getting back to the topic....

I'm not sure about this strategy ethically, but I am interested to see what the outcome would be - any news on this, OP?

TJ666

I can't remember the exact term, but there is a type of fraud which involves disposing of assets such that you get benefits, which is illegal, and people have been done for it (according to radio 4). The example given was someone disposing of a mothers house to pay for care home, but this was deemed fraudulent when trying to top up the care fees from the govt (I think that was the example).
However, it did seem to be a generic name, applicable to many sorts of benefit. Another example might be buying a house to use up your savings, so that you could get income related benefits.

arteh

TJ666, is it deprivation of income that you're thinking of? I think I might've heard that radio programme too... Not sure if it applies here, but it could well do!

nad1611

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcredits/start/claiming/income-hours/other-income.htm

If this is what you're referring to ie "Notional Income", then no it doesn't apply at all. I too would love to know how the OP has faired. Can we have an update.

BigAunty

Yeah, I'd love an update too.

The previous posts are discussion 'deprivation of capital' and whether excess pension contributions would be considered as deprivation of capital. Nothing I've seen in the DWP regulations covers this, I haven't seen anything specific to give me the impression that paying into a pension is seen as deprivation of capital.

DoC is about a claimant intentionally depriving themselves of capital in order to claim means tested benefits so it does cover people who give away cash gifts, transfer their property or pay off a loan early when there was no legal reason to do so (for example, using a windfall to pay off their mortgage early).