Surely you can' turn down an inheritance if you're on means tested benefits?

TheCardcan

My cousin and myself look to be in line for an inheritance (it's complicated so we don;t actually know yet). I know he's on means tested benefits but because he fell out with the person who died he says he's told the solicitors he doesn't want to be included.

Surely you can't grab the moral high ground and still keep claiming benefits?

I want to tell him that he has to accept and declare any inheritance but want to make sure first? Does anyone know for sure please?

tomjonesrules

He can turn it down, however in doing so he *may* be assessed as having the money anyway (notional capital) and so lose his benefit entitlement. For this to happen, someone would need to report him to the DWP ...

RAS

The Benefits Agency check probate cases and will identify him as an inheritor (wills are public documents once proved). At that point they will assume that he has the money even if he has not accepted it. If he has not declared it, he is likely to be in trouble if the sum exceeds £6K. Check out deprivation of assets.

rotoguys

RAS wrote: »

The Benefits Agency check probate cases and will identify him as an inheritor (wills are public documents once proved). At that point they will assume that he has the money even if he has not accepted it. If he has not declared it, he is likely to be in trouble if the sum exceeds £6K. Check out deprivation of assets.

Reading between the lines of the original post, it sounds like that this is a case of an intestate estate (no will).

If that is the case, Probate will not have details of the beneficaries, only the Administrator will.

As the Administer is not required to inform anyone as to who are the beneficaries, it is very unlikely that the DWP will find out that way.

If the beneficary does not want the money, all he or she need do is to write to the Administrator requesting that any monies due should be donated to charity and advise which charity stating that the donor should remain anon.
On no account should the money be paid into or given to that beneficary.

This happens on a regular basis in family breakdowns. It stops the next generation fighting over what is or is not their entitlement or an ex wife/husband getting their hands on it.

Oldernotwiser

rotoguys wrote: »

Reading between the lines of the original post, it sounds like that this is a case of an intestate estate (no will).

If that is the case, Probate will not have details of the beneficaries, only the Administrator will.

As the Administer is not required to inform anyone as to who are the beneficaries, it is very unlikely that the DWP will find out that way.

If the beneficary does not want the money, all he or she need do is to write to the Administrator requesting that any monies due should be donated to charity and advise which charity stating that the donor should remain anon.
On no account should the money be paid into or given to that beneficary.

This happens on a regular basis in family breakdowns. It stops the next generation fighting over what is or is not their entitlement or an ex wife/husband getting their hands on it.

Sounds great except for the fact that it would be fraud.

skintandscared_2

So purposefully living off benefit handouts would be "moral high ground"? How sad.

rotoguys

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Sounds great except for the fact that it would be fraud.

bull****

Charity is an exception - read it up.

So if I said to you - here is a £50,000 loan and you were on a means tested benefit, presumably you would take it, cancel your benefits, use the money to live off for a few years until it was gone, then reclaim your benefits - then I would ask for it back!

Who is going to repay my money? You can't because you've lived off it, the state won't as it isn't their debt.

So I would lose £50,000 and the state would have gained £50,000 in benefits that they didn't have to pay out.

Now if you said no to the £50,000 give it to charity instead, would you then be treated as still having it for benefit purposes?

Have a think about that.

paddedjohn

rotoguys wrote: »

bull****

Charity is an exception - read it up.

So if I said to you - here is a £50,000 loan and you were on a means tested benefit, presumably you would take it, cancel your benefits, use the money to live off for a few years until it was gone, then reclaim your benefits - then I would ask for it back!

Who is going to repay my money? You can't because you've lived off it, the state won't as it isn't their debt.

So I would lose £50,000 and the state would have gained £50,000 in benefits that they didn't have to pay out.

Now if you said no to the £50,000 give it to charity instead, would you then be treated as still having it for benefit purposes?

Have a think about that.

I would say yes, why should the state look after someone who has knowingly given away their money?

Change my mind and show me a link that says otherwise please.

MattLFC

A similar situation to those who "hide" and transfer savings prior to claiming means-tested benefits. Does he already have savings that are amounting to nearly £6k, because if not, surely he would be better to take the inheritance and the hit that he would feel for having in excess of £6k savings (it's £1 lower for every £250 savings after £6,000 upto £16,000 iirc?).

Oldernotwiser

rotoguys wrote: »

bull****

Charity is an exception - read it up.

So if I said to you - here is a £50,000 loan and you were on a means tested benefit, presumably you would take it, cancel your benefits, use the money to live off for a few years until it was gone, then reclaim your benefits - then I would ask for it back!

Who is going to repay my money? You can't because you've lived off it, the state won't as it isn't their debt.

So I would lose £50,000 and the state would have gained £50,000 in benefits that they didn't have to pay out.

Now if you said no to the £50,000 give it to charity instead, would you then be treated as still having it for benefit purposes?

Have a think about that.

Nobody is talking about lending the OP money. If he inherits some then it's his and he can't just give it away and claim benefits.

rogerblack

rotoguys wrote: »

bull****

Charity is an exception - read it up.

Charity is not an exception.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/dmgch52.pdf

These are the ESA rules on capital. (most other benefits are similar or identical)
Nowhere (other than mentioning some charities from which payments to the claimant are exempt from consideration as savings) are charities mentioned in this guidance.

In short - capital is anything you have, which you can sell, or can apply to the courts to get.
With some exceptions for personal possessions.

Specificaly, see 52175 in the above document.

If a person gives away their rights to an inheritance, then they are guilty of deprivation of capital.

And of benefit fraud, if they do not declare this capital, as it would eliminate their rights to benefit.
(if a large amount)