How would inheritance affect Brother's families benefits?

zagfles

Boots888 wrote: »

Many people are now have their non means tested benefits taken away from them due to recent, and retrospectively implented changes in the system.

So you tell those implementing these changes that its all about perspective and the state and society having a sense of responsibility to look after those vulnerable in society and not ripping the rug from under their feet, on which they've been assured the could rely on.

Maybe the OP's brother is one of those people??

From my perspective, it's inhumane (if not illegal) to do what they've done.

If it was illegal to change contributory benefit rules then they wouldn't have been able to get away with increasing the state pension age or reduce the contributory JSA period. If they can reduce the contributory JSA period, why not contribuory ESA?

sleepless_saver

antrobus wrote: »

Well, the answer to the question is, as you have discovered, that inheriting a big wodge of cash will indeed effect the ability to receive means tested benefits such as HB and CTB. On the assumption that the mother in question doesn't look like dying in the near future then, of course, this is an entirely hyothetical outcome, as the brother may well find more gainful employment in due course and thus be able to enjoy his inheritance to the full when the day comes.

Otherwise you could ask your mother to change her will so that your brother doesn't receive a penny, and let you have the lot. On the understanding (you can all trust each other can't you) that you look after his share on his behalf.

Not an option for the OP, as I remember from his other thread that his mother has very recently died in distressing circumstances. So could we all go easy (not aimed at you antrobus).

HB58

OP, I am sorry for your loss. I have some sympathy with your argument, but the facts remain. Looking at this in a positive light, your brother now has the chance to get off benefits and become indeoendant of the state. Would it be possible for him to use some of the money to set himself up in business, or something similar?

Boots888

zagfles wrote: »

If it was illegal to change contributory benefit rules then they wouldn't have been able to get away with increasing the state pension age or reduce the contributory JSA period. If they can reduce the contributory JSA period, why not contribuory ESA?

Neither the increase in pension age nor reduction in JSA is fair. I'd be !!!!ed off if they affected me.

But removing ESA for the long term sick is outragious and completeley different as they are, unlike the above, vulnerable.

cepheus

sammyjammy wrote: »

Not sure why your brother can't look into this himself, you haven't even led us to believe he asked you!

It will be deprivation of assets if your brother repays his debts in full unless he is being taken to court over them. Rather than guess what you think would be deprivation of assets why not have a look.
http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/hbgm-bw1-assessment-of-capital.pdf

I think you are talking nonsense and misleading people, surely they don't encourage people to maintain debts! In fact I have just been speaking with someone who was in this precise situation and they approved of paying off debts without it counting as deprivation, although she kept the benefits agency informed.

Moreover providing she only spent modest amounts for holidays, car etc they approved this as well and didn't count this as deprivation of assets, although keeping reciepts is a must. The correct procedure is surely to talk it through with the benefits agency which may have a different interpretation between different authorities.

Providing he informs the agency and discusses it with them that is all what matters. After that he is very much on his own if he doesn't comply!

xylophone

rogerblack wrote: »

I point you at the sticky on this board " Its about helping people get their entitlement! Not about benefits policy!"

(I know this isn't quite what you're arguing, and this is somewhat out of context)

"Entitlement" is the key? If you have the capital, whether by savings, inheritance or earning then you're not entitled?

cepheus

HB58 wrote: »

OP, I am sorry for your loss. I have some sympathy with your argument, but the facts remain. Looking at this in a positive light, your brother now has the chance to get off benefits and become independent of the state. Would it be possible for him to use some of the money to set himself up in business, or something similar?

Unfortunately at 60 he tends to be fixed in his ways and will continue in a low paid job until he retires. Personally I think he deserves all the benefits he can get after working every year of his life bar 6 months since he was 14 or 15. What's that, 45-46 years of NI? No pension though.

Hopefully Sales people won't see him as a target.

HB58

As you say, it would be particularly cruel if your brother was taken advantage of in that way

Tiddlywinks

Boots888 wrote: »

Many people are now have their non means tested benefits taken away from them due to recent, and retrospectively implented changes in the system.

So you tell those implementing these changes that its all about perspective and the state and society having a sense of responsibility to look after those vulnerable in society and not ripping the rug from under their feet, on which they've been assured the could rely on.

Maybe the OP's brother is one of those people??

From my perspective, it's inhumane (if not illegal) to do what they've done.

And your rant is relevant to this particular thread about inheritance and how it impacts on means tested benefits because......???

Boots888

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

And your rant is relevant to this particular thread about inheritance and how it impacts on means tested benefits because......???

Well, why don't you tell me!

I've many rants about various issues so why don't you just cut to the chase;)??