Income support and savings/capital.

sulkisu

I am asking this question on behalf of a friend. I have searched but can't seem to find the answer anywhere.

She is a single mother with two children and is due to return to work October 2014. She receives income support, HB and CTC. When she made her initial applications for benefits last year (her partner walked out when she was pregnant), she had £11,000 (£8k savings + £3k guilt money from ex) which she declared to the relevant authorities. Her income support was reduced by £24 p.w. She has used some of her savings to supplement her benefits which means that they have reduced over the past 15 months by about £2.5k.

Does anyone know if there is a point where benefits are reassessed to take account of the fact that savings have diminished or is fixed at that level for the duration of the claim?

nannytone_2

she is allowed upto 6k without it affecting her income support.
but its a slifing scale, so if she has 2/5k, she should let them know and her benefit should increase a little.

did she tell housing benefit? as this is also affected by savings

missapril75

Changes in capital - up or down - should be reported and entitlement reassessed accordingly.

£2500 over 15 months is £166 a month.

With IS in payment and rent taken care of, it's possible that they may think that a high spending rate. Some might think so, others not.

If there is a regular expense above the norm or there have been other costs - eg new household equipment - it may be helpful to say so, in the event of a query.

Just so long as it doesn't appear money has been spent just to get an increase in benefit.

nannytone_2

they would only have been receiving £47 a week in IS and HB would have been lower than full rent because of the savings too. spending £41.50 a week from savings to top this up doesnt appear excessive to me.

missapril75

nannytone wrote: »

they would only have been receiving £47 a week in IS and HB would have been lower than full rent because of the savings too. spending £41.50 a week from savings to top this up doesnt appear excessive to me.

Unless there has been a change in recent years, the existence of Income Support - no matter how much - qualifies for maximum HB.

The tariff income is only deducted from HB where means tested benefit is not a passport to HB - unless there has been a recent change.

Opinion is what's going to count with this and surely we have seen enough differing opinions on the same set of facts.

The amounts don't really matter. We all have our opinions based on different expectations.

The fact is, someone on Income Support officially has enough to live on - rent covered, no prescriptions to pay for, no dental costs etc.

There will certainly be those viewing someone spending more than £160 a month above that as doing rather well and you can bet some of them will be low paid members of staff doing less well.

nannytone_2

yjr \op jas only spent an additiona; £20 a weel over and above the income support rate. and as a sinhle parent, they would be allowed to earn this much a week without it affecting benefit anyway.
i really cant see that they would class this as any kind of deprivation of capital

missapril75

nannytone wrote: »

yjr \op jas only spent an additiona; £20 a weel over and above the income support rate. and as a sinhle parent, they would be allowed to earn this much a week without it affecting benefit anyway.
i really cant see that they would class this as any kind of deprivation of capital

It works out to £166 a month. That's nearly £40 a week.

As I say, the amount in payment isn't the important bit. What's important is that officially it's enough to live on and pay rent and that's been topped up by nearly £40 a week.

Some people will consider that significant.

I and my family lives on a low income. An extra £40 a week would seem like wealth to us.

mikey_bach

The OP has been having tariff income out of her I.S so not getting the full entitlement so to make up the shortfall has been using her savings.

If she phones today and reported the change it would only be lowered from today, the date of change being the date she notified the office.

Because there has been a drop in capital she would need to supply bank statements showing everything going out, if there are large withdrawels then she would need to show proof to what she spent that amount on.

This info then goes to the SDM who make the decision has there been a deprivation of capital or just topping up her income.
If they decide there hasnt been deprivation the change would be implemented.
And if deprivation then they would assume notional capital,

I would say phone up and declare the change

nannytone_2

missapril75 wrote: »

It works out to £166 a month. That's nearly £40 a week.

As I say, the amount in payment isn't the important bit. What's important is that officially it's enough to live on and pay rent and that's been topped up by nearly £40 a week.

Some people will consider that significant.

I and my family lives on a low income. An extra £40 a week would seem like wealth to us.

yes £40 a week, but her IS is reduced by £20 a week. so only an additional £20 from if she was on full IS

sulkisu

Thanks for the replies - I will pass on the advice. She lives in a council house and gets full housing benefit. I appreciate £40 a week is a lot for some people, but when you are a two income family and things change literally overnight, you still have many of the expenses that you had before, and little time to mitigate the loss by reducing costs. In her case she still had six monthly installments on laser eye surgery repayments to make (£1200). She works in the financial industry so defaulting on the loan was simply not an option. Plus things for the baby - her oldest child is a teenager so she had to start from scratch.
Her savings are untouched - but her bank statements will show the £3k that he put in her current account slowly whittled away.

missapril75

nannytone wrote: »

yes £40 a week, but her IS is reduced by £20 a week. so only an additional £20 from if she was on full IS

Remembering, of course, the £14k capital and how that's invested.

According to MSE that could be producing interest of £10 a week, so the shortfall might only be £10 a week.

Even at £30 a week above benefit rates some people are still going to view that less sympathetically than others.

I worked for DWP for a long time. Believe me, there are individual staff members who would try to make a case for deprivation. My initial post was to help guard against that.