On benifits and have been left inheritance

princessdon

No buying a home to live in (as opposed to rental income) is acceptable and advised.

enabledebra

CKhalvashi wrote: »

£180k, in some areas round here, will get a nice little 3/4 bed house that may need some work doing to it.

I picked up a 3 bed ex-council (and we're in quite an affluent area) for £170k last year, and had about £6k spent on it.

Would Deprivation of Capital count, as technically, it's saving the Gov money in HB?

CK

It's unlikely to make deprivation bite if you buy a house. But having said that it's not really what you spend the capital on which is the problem its why you spend it. If you buy a house in order to gain or increase entitlement to a benefit then you will have deprived yourself of capital, but if you buy 40000 lottery tickets because you are a gambling addict you won't have deprived yourself. Crude examples but that's approx how it works

To my knowledge without researching it's not a trade off of overall entitlement to different benefits. Although that could be an argument, I'm not aware of any decisions on this off the top of my head.

princessdon

enabledebra wrote: »

It's unlikely to make deprivation bite if you buy a house. But having said that it's not really what you spend the capital on which is the problem its why you spend it. If you buy a house in order to gain or increase entitlement to a benefit then you will have deprived yourself of capital, but if you buy 40000 lottery tickets because you are a gambling addict you won't have deprived yourself. Crude examples but that's approx how it works

To my knowledge without researching it's not a trade off of overall entitlement to different benefits. Although that could be an argument, I'm not aware of any decisions on this off the top of my head.

It was a few years ago (so not sure if rules have changed) but a colleague informed me (can't say it is true) of the following.

They bought a campervan for £28,000 in June. In July were made redundant. They looked at outgoings and decided they deprived themselves. Now according to colleague - they had no idea in June they would be redundant.

They classed this as notional capital.

Personally not 100% sure I believe them - but as they were working for the LA chances are they knew anyway. Incidently it was sold for £300 less than price paid once employed.

Situation was they appealed and allowed - but found work anyway, but claimed 12 weeks worth of benefits.

I genuinely think they got their at risk and spent their savings on an asset they could sell when times suited but in reality who is to say or prove that?

Owain_Moneysaver

princessdon wrote: »

No buying a home to live in (as opposed to rental income) is acceptable and advised.

I think there may be a bedroom limit, or is that just for payment of mortgage interest from benefit?

Although buying a house may give greater security of tenure than renting, there are greater maintenance costs and responsibilities as a homeowner than a tenant.

Mojisola

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

Although buying a house may give greater security of tenure than renting, there are greater maintenance costs and responsibilities as a homeowner than a tenant.

This is the problem if you become a home-owner. Will your benefits in future be enough to allow for all the extra costs?

enabledebra

princessdon wrote: »

It was a few years ago (so not sure if rules have changed) but a colleague informed me (can't say it is true) of the following.

They bought a campervan for £28,000 in June. In July were made redundant. They looked at outgoings and decided they deprived themselves. Now according to colleague - they had no idea in June they would be redundant.

They classed this as notional capital.

Personally not 100% sure I believe them - but as they were working for the LA chances are they knew anyway. Incidently it was sold for £300 less than price paid once employed.

Situation was they appealed and allowed - but found work anyway, but claimed 12 weeks worth of benefits.

I genuinely think they got their at risk and spent their savings on an asset they could sell when times suited but in reality who is to say or prove that?

I expect you may be right on all counts but I think the appeal decision was right also- it couldn't be proved on the balance of probability that they bought the campervan to gain or increase entitlement to the benefit they claimed so no deprivation.

princessdon

Mojisola wrote: »

This is the problem if you become a home-owner. Will your benefits in future be enough to allow for all the extra costs?

It's a sad state of affairs when people live and aspire to a life on benefits and it absorbs all their thoughts and dreams!

This way their children have an inheritance!

CKhalvashi

enabledebra wrote: »

To my knowledge without researching it's not a trade off of overall entitlement to different benefits. Although that could be an argument, I'm not aware of any decisions on this off the top of my head.

I don't think it's been tested in a court yet, however I'd rather (speaking as someone who owns a variety of properties) OP was left with an investment, which in turn could be left to their own children, especially as prices are relatively low at the moment.

CK

princessdon

If I was in Op's situation - nearing retirment etc I'd buy a home and transfer to a trust for my children. Just my opinion though

Mojisola

princessdon wrote: »

If I was in Op's situation - nearing retirment etc I'd buy a home and transfer to a trust for my children. Just my opinion though

And grow old in a steadily deteriorating house because there aren't the funds to keep it in good repair? No thanks!