CT benefit and "deprivation of capital"

drwho2011

BigAunty wrote: »

The rules are really complex but I do believe that the onus is on the DWP to prove intentionality, that a claimant has done it deliberately in order to maximise their benefit entitlements, such as a record of them being told or having enquired about capital thresholds, for example.

I have heard of cases which have gone to a legal appeal where the court judge has overuled the DWP. The case I recall (whose link I can't find) concerned someone of mature age who used their redundancy money to pay down or pay off their mortgage. The judge felt that it was a sensible thing to do as they approached retirement and overuled the deprivation of capital ruling by the DWP.

Some people actually do make changes to their capital completely oblivious to the rules - for example, they've never claimed benefits before so how would they know?

There is a significant difference from paying down your mortgage from redundancy and donating to charity.

I suspect one of the reasons she be refused would be due to the fact that her savings went down to the magical £6,000 figure.

Now I am assuming she tried to claim previously and was refused due to savings, if she enquired as to the capital limits it would explain how she hit the figure that her savings wouldn't effect the amount of CTB she could receive.

Common sense should prevail as she was obviously aware that some capital limit would be applied and now she has managed to perfectly hit the limit before savings start to reduce CTB?

Or maybe I'm just being cynical here.

HappyMJ

What would be reasonable amounts to donate? Is a tithing of 10% acceptable? To some cultures/religions it is expected that 10% of all income is donated. Someone with a salary of £400,000 would earn £180,000 after tax and pension contributions so £18,000 would be fine....but then they would not be trying to claim benefits even if they did become unemployed I'm sure their capital would be too high....

robredz

To give such a large sum to a charity, in the full knowledge that they may well then need to claim a benefit to manage, or pay their Council Tax, IS prima facie deprivation of income imho. They could have donated smaller sums and kept the capital, to be self sufficient

debtfreenow

It certainly sounds as if OP's friend has quite deliberately taken her savings down to such a low level. It has been done in a good cause (ie given to charity), but the effect is still the same. So, it certainly looks a lot like "deprivation of capital" to me (even though she personally hasnt had the benefit of that money).

Two points that strike me:
1. O.P. seems to have just "taken her word for it" that she gave the money to charity. Maybe she has actually "salted away" at least a bit of that money somewhere for herself. I wonder if OP has actually seen any concrete proof that the money has all gone to charity (eg receipts).

2. If she were able to give all that money to charity and then get benefit (due to low level of savings), then the effect would be exactly the same (from the community point of view) as if the Council had gone and handed any benefit money they now gave her direct to charity themselves. The only difference would be that one individual person chose which charities Council Taxpayers would give all their "charitable donation" money to on behalf of everyone else!!!!

In the Council's position, I would just regard any claim for benefit for these reasons as "Miss X has deliberately given money to charity of her choice, expecting us to pick up the tab later on. We never decided to hand over C.T. payers' money to charity, so we can't let her do this with Council funds by such an indirect route" iyswim.

As someone who gives what I can afford to charity myself AND a Council Taxpayer then I wouldn't be at all happy at someone taking a slice out of my Council Tax I had just paid and giving it to a charity of THEIR choice. Some charities are ones I would/do give to myself, but there are others that wouldn't get my money no matter what (ie because I don't agree with them). There are two main groups of charities that would never get a penny out of me directly and I would hate to feel they might have got some out of me indirectly. I very much doubt whether there is one single charity that absolutely everyone would agree is a "worthy cause". This being the case, the Council has no option but to refuse to "use Council money to subsidise her giving money to charity".

tamiami

To give away money when you need it to live off is ridiculous, no on-one in the right mind would do it. Instead of claiming benefits she should be looking for a place in a hostal, as this is the most support I believe she should be offered. Let her live in the gutter if she is so stupid!

Marisco

Charity begins at home - in her case it should be literally!! Am I alone in thinking this has a whiff of under the bridge about it?

tamiami

Yes, think it is a troll.
Either way chuck her out into the streets - the silly cow.

Orville

You lot make me laugh. It's obviously a wind up. Ignore it.

BigAunty

rotoguys wrote: »

Unfortunately that cannot be a valid defence. You cannot plead ignorance of benefit rules, it is your responsibility to ask.

.

Deprivation of Capital is about intentionality - the DWP have to demonstrate that the claimant has deliberately/knowingly squandered their capital.

shop-to-drop

Out of interest what charity was it?