Benefit Fraud - Fessing Up.

BigAunty

Errata wrote: »

Taking a view: If I was on HB/CTB and inheritied furniture/artwork to the value of £150k would I be expected to flog it to pay them myself?

Views aren't helpful. We need to advise how it is rather than how it should be.

I haven't yet detected any evidence that an inheritance of jewelry affects the receipt of means tested benefits but I would be happy to be challenged on this.

Personal possessions aren't required to be sold - the days of a benefit claimant having to sell their means is long gone, hence the means test.

NYM

BigAunty wrote: »

I'm confused - does this OP use multiple usernames on MSE? Or is this post not linked at all?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4839829

Because if the OP and the other username is the same person, and the couple in the posts are the same couple as in this thread, then his relatives have already committed benefit fraud by not declaring the property they inherited.

This would have made them ineligible for housing benefit and council tax benefit at their existing council property, plus the income support that is mentioned.

When they signed for these benefits, they would be obliged to report changes in circumstance. Each time they renewed them, the forms would ask them if they had any capital. The fact that they received no rental income is irrelevant - the second property is classed as capital. Capital above 6k reduces entitlement to means tested benefits while capital above 16k rules it out.

If this is the case, they have many years of CT, IS and HB to pay back, plus the risk of prosecution.

Rather unfortunate forgetting which user name to use before replying ...;)

BigAunty

NYM wrote: »

Would this be the same couple that inherited a house 4 years ago and now want to use RTB ....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/63987698#Comment_63987698

which would make the OP the one living in his Gran's old property rent-free, perhaps originally gifted to his father and passed onto him, while his parents continue to live in their council property without declaring its true ownership, the father actually being on the deeds, according to these threads.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/55465149#Comment_55465149
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=63988372&postcount=3

Now they've got the usual benefit fraud conundrum of how to be able to legitimately buy their council place under the Right to Buy while maintaining the appearance of being as poor as church mice. The best way for them to buy their discounted council property would be to sell their other property to their son but, ooops, this would raise a flag. Far better if their son can get a guarantors type mortgage and not draw attention to their wealth.

evenasus

BigAunty wrote: »

Now they've got the usual benefit fraud conundrum of how to be able to legitimately buy their council place under the Right to Buy while maintaining the appearance of being as poor as church mice. The best way for them to buy their discounted council property would be to sell their other property to their son but, ooops, this would raise a flag. Far better if their son can get a guarantors type mortgage and not draw attention to their wealth.

Is it just me, or do these make you question? Also the OP's English varies.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/62738872#Comment_62738872

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4736838

rogerblack

BigAunty wrote: »

I haven't yet detected any evidence that an inheritance of jewelry affects the receipt of means tested benefits but I would be happy to be challenged on this.

Personal possessions aren't required to be sold - the days of a benefit claimant having to sell their means is long gone, hence the means test.

Personal possessions aren't required to be sold.

The issue that arises is are these personal possessions.

This is a matter of judgement that each decisionmaker or tribunal (or claimant) must decide for themselves.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/252063/dmg-vol9-ch52.pdf are the rules for ESA - other benefits are generally similar or identical.

Broadly - anything that you can legally sell, or sell the rights to sell in the future is capital.

The important bit starts at 52351 'the law allows for all capital to be included in the claimants resources unless it can be disregarded'.

The _WHOLE_ guidance that applies to this case is:
'52431 Personal possessions such as clothing, jewelery and cars are disregarded'.


However.
The 'such as' indicates this is an example list - it's not saying that only these things are exempt - or that these things will always be exempt.

In the case of gold bars - I note the OP says 'it's metal' - this defence becomes really weak.
Gold and cash have essentially the same treatment.

You can try to argue that this bundle of 20000 fivers inherited from your uncle Joe is a personal possession, and then the decisionmaker would need to consider on the facts of the case if in fact it was a personal possession.

They might take into account such facts as the likelyhood of the case that you loved uncle Joe, and can't bear to be parted from it.

This is _slightly_ changed if it was jewellery, as the fact it's explicitly listed means that it's reasonable to give it special consideration over gold bars or cash. However, it relies on the meaning of 'personal possession' being more than that of 'possession'.

The exclusion is not for objects you just possess - there has to be more than that - it has to be personal to you in some way.

Anonymous tradable possessions probably don't count.

If you look at a box of jewellery you got, and your first thought is 'Oh - that looks lovely on me' - it may be a personal possession. If your first thought is 'Ew, that's hideous, I wonder what it's worth' - it's probably not.

If it is not a personal possession, then any means tested benefits paid since they came into possession of it have been overpaid, as they did not report this capital.
If this exceeds 2K or so total payment, they can consider prosecution.

Prosecution can do anything up and including imprisonment, and selling off assets that would not normally be sold - like houses and cars in order to recover the money.

The above is based on reading the guidance and legislation. There are few absolute exclusions around the determination of capital, and the exclusions.

You may get a DM that thinks gold bars are quite fine as personal possessions, in the same way that you may get one that considers a family holiday for 3 weeks in the Bahamas is 'reasonable expenditure' and not deprivation of capital.

On the other hand, people have reported DMs wanting grocery receipts.

sarbaloosa

There is no dispute in them wanting to pay it back.

If they have to sell the gold to pay back what they owe then they are happy to do this.

Why is there reference to another housing issue on this forum? I have no idea why people seem to put 2 and 2 together and make 4. This is a very specific issue about personal possessions.

only_mee

sarbaloosa wrote: »

I have no idea why people seem to put 2 and 2 together and make 4

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
:T:T:T:T:T

rogerblack

sarbaloosa wrote: »

There is no dispute in them wanting to pay it back.

If they have to sell the gold to pay back what they owe then they are happy to do this.

This does not end the matter.
There is also the possibility of prison, if it is thought that this was done knowingly.

jacques_chirac

OP is a troll. OP even admits to being a troll in other threads. Hope they do not delete this thread though as there has been some excellent discussion from others.

paddedjohn

jacques_chirac wrote: »

OP is a troll. OP even admits to being a troll in other threads. Hope they do not delete this thread though as there has been some excellent discussion from others.

I made a comment hinting that the OP was a troll early on in the thread but it was removed hsq.