inheritance, mental health and disability/housing benefit

slartibartfast1

Thank you for you responses.
He is not in Scotland.
To be honest I do not know what benefits he is on as he is not co-operating or engaging at all. We have never been close or on particularly good terms.
At the moment I am frustrated and do not wish to be involved with him any more than I have to.
He has been advised to seek advice and he has plenty of money to do it with, but he won't.
These tips are useful for when he does respond.
Thank you.

slartibartfast1

princessdon wrote: »

Wow - How to stuff the tax payers! What about the moral route of

"If you have money you no longer need benefits" Or is it not a safety net anymore - Is it a right for some people?

I think you'll find I am trying to ensure that this is dealt with correctly.

slartibartfast1

..Also the will made no provision or referrence to his medical condition.

The Probate is now finished and he has (or would have) the capital.
To the best of my knowledge the Grant of Probate requires me to fulfil the conditions of the will, IE split the assets accordingly.

Even if he wanted to waive his right to the money (which I believe would be a foolish thing to do as he can be assessed as having received it), this can not be done without a properly drawn up and witnessed contract outlining the variance.

slartibartfast1

rogerblack wrote: »

{Link Snipped}
Read and understand this document on capital and ESA (all other means-tested benefits are more-or-less similar).

Just a little light reading!

Oh well I have read most of current Charities Acts so this should be a cinch...

Thank you.

mynameistallulah

slartibartfast1 wrote: »

To be honest I do not know what benefits he is on as he is not co-operating or engaging at all. We have never been close or on particularly good terms.
At the moment I am frustrated and do not wish to be involved with him any more than I have to.

A very sad attitude considering that his behaviour is due to severe mental illness. Why not try to understand, rather than wanting to wash your hands of him?

slartibartfast1

mynameistallulah wrote: »

A very sad attitude considering that his behaviour is due to severe mental illness. Why not try to understand, rather than wanting to wash your hands of him?

My relationship with my brother is solely financial.
This is a financial matters forum.
I know I'm on the right forum.

princessdon

slartibartfast1 wrote: »

I think you'll find I am trying to ensure that this is dealt with correctly.

I wasn't replying to you - you realise that your brothers entitlement to benefits will end and you are trying to protect the hard work of your parents and not see it squandered and gone to waste and I understand that, I feel the same.

My brother is a waste of space - Not due to MH but drugs and I hate the fact that the hard work of my parents would go in his veins (which is what will happen).

It was to the poster who suggested that people should set up accounts for ANYONE on benefits to allow them to continue to claim and have access to the money. End of the day - the £16K limit is there for a reason - The govt say if you have this in the bank you don't need it. This may mean for a year or so you use the money and don't claim benefits and once back under the limit you can apply again.

Jemma-T

I see my post was removed.

Just give the guy his money.

Nobody's business what he does with it.

rogerblack

Jemma-T wrote: »

I see my post was removed.

Just give the guy his money.

Nobody's business what he does with it.

Unfortunately, this isn't true.
His benefits will be terminated (rightly, as he's come into money).

The problem is that when he comes to reapply for benefits again, his spending will be scrutinised carefully.
Any expense which is not reasonable may be disallowed, and him treated as if he was spending the money to get benefit, and still has it.

In many (not, of course all) mental illnesses, never-mind ones severe enough to get you placed in a mental hospital, like the OPs brother, there are severe issues with managing money, and determining what is and is not 'reasonable' spending may not be possible for the person.

This might in the worst case lead to him (for example) blowing the 40K in one year, and then be treated as if he still has 30K of it, meaning he has no entitlement to most benefits.
In principle, it's possible to challenge this sort of decision, but it's a legal process that will take over a year in many cases.

skintandscared_2

Jemma-T wrote: »

I see my post was removed.

Just give the guy his money.

Nobody's business what he does with it.

I think your post was probably removed for the revolting word you used to refer to someone with mental health issues. If you knew anything at all about it, you would know how disastrous your suggestion could be.