Inheritance and benefits

gemma1979

princessdon wrote: »

is there a reason you forsee being on benefits for a long time?

As it happens, yes there is. I have a disabled son who needs day and all night care and I am his carer and I also work part time yet am on a low income. As I will be his carer for the foreseeable future as his care needs are not likely to be changing anytime soon then yes I foresee myself being partially supported by benefits for a while.

princessdon

gemma1979 wrote: »

As it happens, yes there is. I have a disabled son who needs day and all night care and I am his carer and I also work part time yet am on a low income. As I will be his carer for the foreseeable future as his care needs are not likely to be changing anytime soon then yes I foresee myself being partially supported by benefits for a while.

Fair do's - just wonered as it's not logical to expect benefits for years and years

gemma1979

Face1992 wrote: »

You were asking if you got a house left to you would it affect the benefits you get.

It would be great to be in the position of having a mortgage free house and an income from dog breeding and have the warm glow inside knowing you owe nobody anything because you yourself are paying to bring up your kids. No?

I don't mean to be rude but firstly a POSSIBLE (as in not even currently decided upon) ONE litter is hardly an income for life.

Secondly I am working part time so partially paying to 'bring up my kid'. The reason I am not working full time to do so is said 'kid' was born disabled and I have caring responsibilities day and night which normal childcare provision does not cater for.

gemma1979

princessdon wrote: »

Fair do's - just wonered as it's not logical to expect benefits for years and years

I work part time for victim support and have a law degree which I received before my son was born. Believe me, if I could work full time I would do as caring for a disabled child is harder than any job I have ever done. As soon as it is possible for me to return to full time employment I will be doing as being at home most of the day is boring.

Face1992

gemma1979 wrote: »

I don't mean to be rude but firstly a POSSIBLE (as in not even currently decided upon) ONE litter is hardly an income for life.

Secondly I am working part time so partially paying to 'bring up my kid'. The reason I am not working full time to do so is said 'kid' was born disabled and I have caring responsibilities day and night which normal childcare provision does not cater for.

It's hard work when you've been up all night with a kid and then have to go to work, we've all done it, it isn't good

gemma1979

Face1992 wrote: »

It's hard work when you've been up all night with a kid and then have to go to work, we've all done it, it isn't good

Most people are understanding when they know my situation and have seen my home life etc but I do come across a lot of prejudice on a pretty regular basis merely for the fact I am claiming benefits. I know there are a lot of people out there who are on benefits for the reason of they don't want to work etc but we are not all like that. Unfortunately they ruin it for those that really need it.

princessdon

I have a lot of respect for people in your scenario - Hence the ? at the end of my post.

But I can't agree with finding ways to maximise benefits when you have means. That said if the law allows it, then it isn't the fault of those that do, but I will still beleive the loophole needs closed.

Whilst it is open - (and I'd do the same in your position if honest) then fair do's. That doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be closed though, just I understand your position.

gemma1979

princessdon wrote: »

I have a lot of respect for people in your scenario - Hence the ? at the end of my post.

But I can't agree with finding ways to maximise benefits when you have means. That said if the law allows it, then it isn't the fault of those that do, but I will still beleive the loophole needs closed.

Whilst it is open - (and I'd do the same in your position if honest) then fair do's. That doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be closed though, just I understand your position.

Yes the said loopholes do need to be closed. I wasn't looking for a loophole though I was wondering what happens if I do inherit a house off my mother/father whilst in my current situation (on benefits/low income).

PippaGirl_2

I would rent it out gemma, and declare the rental income - they would take the expenses of the property into account and only the profit would count. At least then you won't be relying so much on the state and would have independence. Or you can choose to ask your parents to leave it directly to the children in equal shares or however is best wrt the disabled child.

Re:trust fund. It's not actually true that the DWP don't count a trust fund as capital, they do even if you don't have access to the money. A close friend of mine was left money in trust which though is his he has no legal access to, all applications by him has to go to the trustees and they decide yay or nay. He applied for a motorised wheelchair for greater independence and they said no so he makes do with his manual one. He tried to get benefits but was turned down due to the trust fund. So his DLA and IB is what he lives on, as they are not means tested. When he is switched from IB to ESA he'll be stuffed. Stuffed by the trust fund he has no access to.

I have suggested he take the trustees to court but one of them is his overbearing father and he's terrified of him. If he doesn't take court action in the next 7 months his opportunity will go as legal aid is being cut.

So trust funds are taken into account by the DWP and can leave a person stumped.

BurnleyBob

antrobus wrote: »

If you're going to live in the house, it makes no difference. If you're not living in the house, then if you own it, it's capital and will be treated as such by DWP. If you're not living in the house, and all you have is a life interest in the house, then all you have is the potential income from renting it out.

I don't know how you made those matter-of-fact assumptions from reading the opening post.

'If you're going to live in the house, it makes no difference' is plainly incorrect under any number of scenarios.

If, for example, she was living as a secure tenant at a social housing property and was in receipt of any means-tested benefit when her mother died then upping sticks to move there would see those benefits withdrawn after a certain period and remain that way for years because the DWP, LA or both would say she should have stayed put, flogged the other property and be denied those benefits until her savings fall below relevant thresholds.