inheritance

jlawrence

rogerblack wrote: »

If you have money - ever - and put it into trust - (unless it's from a personal injury to you, and done at the time of settlement ) then you are likely to be treated as still having that money - because you chose to put it beyond use.

If you are bequeathed money from your mother, and put it into trust - same applies.
You have the legal freedom to spend it on anything - it's capital.

If however, your mother chooses to set up a trust in her will to pay certain expenses for you directly, and you have no way of challenging this and getting access to the capital in the trust - then it does not count - simply as you have no access to the capital.

If you have ever had legal access to the capital - it is in general impossible to conceal it by putting it in a trust, if the purpose of that action was to obtain (more) benefit.

Thanks Roger, I think I understand, as long as it was my money but I couldn't get at it then it isn't counted?
So who sets up these trusts things? Me?
So for all intents and purposes I could be a multi millionaire but as long as it isn't in my name but put into some sort of off shore trust I could get means tested benefits as they can't say I have it?
Ah I see now. Because the compensation was mainly for loss of income and a bit for the injury that the other drivers solicitor worked out and had paid to me, that income bit should be used to live off in the future and not used to support a mortgage debt. That's what the DWP meant then. Gotit!
The bit about putting the money away now I understand. Of course I am trying to get benefits paid, what else would I be attempting to do?

Parva

jlawrence wrote: »

Thanks Roger, I think I understand, as long as it was my money but I couldn't get at it then it isn't counted?
So who sets up these trusts things? Me?
So for all intents and purposes I could be a multi millionaire but as long as it isn't in my name but put into some sort of off shore trust I could get means tested benefits as they can't say I have it?
Ah I see now. Because the compensation was mainly for loss of income and a bit for the injury that the other drivers solicitor worked out and had paid to me, that income bit should be used to live off in the future and not used to support a mortgage debt. That's what the DWP meant then. Gotit!
The bit about putting the money away now I understand. Of course I am trying to get benefits paid, what else would I be attempting to do?

Either I am reading this wrong or you have totally misunderstood what you have been told. If you have received a large compensation payout then it matters not what you do afterwards, whether you send it to an offshore trust or even give it all to charity. The simple fact is that you had that capital and will be treated as having it regardless of how you try to 'hide' it. Indeed, trying to hide it as if you never had it would get you into a heap of trouble for fraud.

I receive DLA and ESA currently and am undergoing a court case where I will hopefully win compensation. The first thing the DWP are going to want are ALL of my ESA payments to date repaying and assuming I get a decent sum of compensation, ESA will cease completely. It wouldn't matter if I said I was giving all of the compensation to the RSPCA as a charitable donation, the fact is that I had the money and am therefore accountable. You cannot just hide the money away and hope to continue on full benefits, it doesn't work like that.

If this truly is a gift to your daughter for the future then yes, a trust would work for her but if you yourself are on benefits and were giving the money away to your daughter deliberately in the hope that the less capital you have personally will enable you to claim more in benefits, I am afraid that this will not work. I'm confused as to who has received the compensation, you or your daughter? Either way, whichever of you has received the payout (assuming it's a substantial one) and if you're both on benefits then whichever one received it can expect their benefits entitlement to change regardless of how you try to reassign the money.

rogerblack

Parva wrote: »

Either I am reading this wrong or you have totally misunderstood what you have been told. If you have received a large compensation payout then it matters not what you do afterwards, whether you send it to an offshore trust or even give it all to charity. The simple fact is that you had that capital and will be treated as having it regardless of how you try to 'hide' it. Indeed, trying to hide it as if you never had it would get you into a heap of trouble for fraud.

This is both true and false.
If it's a personal injury compensation payment for you, then if it is put into trust at the time of payout - and you never actually have the capital in hand - this is explicitly allowed by benefit legislation.

It may in some cases be worth looking into an action against the solicitor for compensation, if they did not suggest this.

jlawrence

rogerblack wrote: »

This is both true and false.
If it's a personal injury compensation payment for you, then if it is put into trust at the time of payout - and you never actually have the capital in hand - this is explicitly allowed by benefit legislation.

It may in some cases be worth looking into an action against the solicitor for compensation, if they did not suggest this.

Hi Roger, I didn't know that you could do that. If my payout was a mistake and it should have gone into a trust, is it too late to do it now? How would I go about claiming compensation from the solicitor that acted for guilty party and his insurance company. I didn't have a solicitor, they did all of the work and told me how much they would give us.

Parva

jlawrence wrote: »

Hi Roger, I didn't know that you could do that. If my payout was a mistake and it should have gone into a trust, is it too late to do it now? How would I go about claiming compensation from the solicitor that acted for guilty party and his insurance company. I didn't have a solicitor, they did all of the work and told me how much they would give us.

The issue here is that you are trying to hide funds in order to continue a benefit claim. I don't think there's any truth in you wanting to put this money into a trust purely for your daughters benefit, you are just trying to wangle a way to 'hide' the funds in order to continue getting that mortgage interest paid (as per the other thread elsewhere) or whatever other reason. I would quit the "I'm trying to look after my daughter" excuse and accept the "I am trying to milk the system" reason....

rogerblack

jlawrence wrote: »

Hi Roger, I didn't know that you could do that. If my payout was a mistake and it should have gone into a trust, is it too late to do it now? How would I go about claiming compensation from the solicitor that acted for guilty party and his insurance company. I didn't have a solicitor, they did all of the work and told me how much they would give us.

In that case, the only person responsible legally is yourself, the company are under no obligation to help you, or advise the most advantageous way of paying out.
Unfortunately, it's too late to do anything now, unless you can get the DWP to agree in writing that your proposed trust fund for your daughter is not deprivation of capital.
Then, and only then would it be safe to do.

jlawrence

Parva wrote: »

The issue here is that you are trying to hide funds in order to continue a benefit claim. I don't think there's any truth in you wanting to put this money into a trust purely for your daughters benefit, you are just trying to wangle a way to 'hide' the funds in order to continue getting that mortgage interest paid (as per the other thread elsewhere) or whatever other reason. I would quit the "I'm trying to look after my daughter" excuse and accept the "I am trying to milk the system" reason....

Thanks Parva, I'm not trying to get any benefit to continue, we don't get any benefit for anything. Our children have nothing to do with it, I have never even contemplated wanting to give any of them any money beit in a trust or otherwise. Where do you get that information from? There are no mortgage payments as the capital that the bank have off sets the debt. I'm not trying to milk anything, I didn't understand what the difference was between having a mortgage that is backed up by an equivalent deposit and no interest being paid or received and no mortgage and no deposit.

jlawrence

rogerblack wrote: »

In that case, the only person responsible legally is yourself, the company are under no obligation to help you, or advise the most advantageous way of paying out.
Unfortunately, it's too late to do anything now, unless you can get the DWP to agree in writing that your proposed trust fund for your daughter is not deprivation of capital.
Then, and only then would it be safe to do.

Thanks Roger, the trust fund idea has nothing to do with any of my children, it was something that may have helped us not have the money the bank are holding to secure the mortgage being treated as capital that we should spend to live off. I'm just an ordinary person that knows very little if anything about trusts or dealing with compensation payments. I had to trust the solicitor to make sure everything was done fair and right for both parties. I accept that the DWP are right now as it dawned on me that any compensation payment if it related to future losses of income must be spent before benefits can be claimed.

Mojisola

jlawrence wrote: »

There are no mortgage payments as the capital that the bank have off sets the debt.

I'm not trying to milk anything, I didn't understand what the difference was between having a mortgage that is backed up by an equivalent deposit and no interest being paid or received and no mortgage and no deposit.

If you had paid the money to the mortgage company, you would no longer have access to it. It would not be your money any longer.

As you have access to the money, it is counted as capital that you could use to live off and that affects your eligibility to claim means tested benefits.

jlawrence

Mojisola wrote: »

If you had paid the money to the mortgage company, you would no longer have access to it. It would not be your money any longer.

As you have access to the money, it is counted as capital that you could use to live off and that affects your eligibility to claim means tested benefits.

Thanks Mo, you are right we wouldn't have the money, but we also wouldn't have a mortgage. As we didn't do, we borrowed £100,000 and deposited £100,000 in their account, that it seems that we now have to spend the money on our living costs and care costs until 2020. Then when the bank want their £100,000 back, where do we get that from? We have to sell it seems and down trade again hoping that another bank would help us out with a mortgage. This is provided that the bank don't get funny when they realise that the deposit is dwindling away like our savings did over the previous 12 months.