Financial gift to get married...what about benefits?

star2sparkle

I hope some of you knowledgeable souls can answer this conundrum :cool:

Girl wishes to marry, she suffers from illnesses which means she claims benefits relating to that such as DLA and others, including housing benefit. Traditionally, parents pay for wedding. Her parents give her a lump sum for said wedding (takes her over the threshold of savings from a benefits point of view) and with that money, she pays for wedding, nothing else.

Is this fraud from the benefits point of view?

If she told the benefits agency, they would have stopped her benefits obviously which is unfair.

So what happens in this situation? Obviously it would be far better for the parents to have just paid for it all from their bank account but what if they aren't in that position to do so for their own reasons?

Would someone get prosecuted for fraud for effectively getting married?

Thanks!

PippaGirl_2

The mother should have paid everything directly. Any income handed to a benefits claimant needs to be declared.

Pippin12

I'm afraid PippaGirl is absolutely right about this.

Mojisola

star2sparkle wrote: »

Would someone get prosecuted for fraud for effectively getting married?

No, but they could for having savings over the limit and not declaring them.

star2sparkle

I agree, of course, the obvious solution, but unfortunately that couldn't happen due to very serious and worrying health reasons. They could never have done it. The thing is, if they had just paid for everything then it wouldn't be considered as 'income' even though the daughter did exactly with it what they would have! So it was always their money and never her money. It is necessary, with fraud, to show the mens rea of deception/intending to be dishonest. I can't see how it can be proved in a case like this.

star2sparkle

It wasn't savings or income though. It was never 'her' money, it was always her parent's money.

Mojisola

star2sparkle wrote: »

It wasn't savings or income though. It was never 'her' money, it was always her parent's money.

Once it was in her account, it was her money.

I would suggest being upfront with the DWP about it. They may allow it or they may ask for any overpayment to be paid back. Either way, it will be dealt with.

star2sparkle

Yes, it did, but the disputed point is that it wasn't her savings but her parents. They paid for her wedding, she didn't pay for her wedding.

star2sparkle

It's all because it went into her account, if it hadn't, then it would be fine. It is a shame because it wasn't deceitful at all, with parents with failing health wanting to see their daughter happy despite her own illness.

sleepless_saver

For housing benefit purposes, they will look at who the "beneficial owner" of the capital is when deciding whether to take the capital into account. The money was in her account, and she benefits from it. Her parents don't benefit from it. Seems straightforward that it's her money. DLA isn't affected by capital so no problem there.

"Capital, in whatever form, always belongs to the beneficial owner, that is the person who stands to gain. The person in whose name the capital is held is known as the legal owner." http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/hbgm-bw1-assessment-of-capital.pdf

sleepless_saver

star2sparkle wrote: »

It's all because it went into her account, if it hadn't, then it would be fine. It is a shame because it wasn't deceitful at all, with parents with failing health wanting to see their daughter happy despite her own illness.

I agree with you, there wouldn't have been a problem if it had not gone into her account, and it is a pity. Best option now is Mojisola's good suggestion.