devil and deep blue sea!!!

jlawrence

Thanks Poppie, thanks for the suggestion, but to be honest I don't fancy putting us through the wringer just to get Cameron to accept that we are disabled. I have read the horror stories on here about PIP, and how it is getting worse. I don't think that I fancy having to jump through the hoops and eventually go to court because of mistakes that the DWP make.
What is the TOP DEAL please?

jlawrence

pmlindyloo wrote: »

I am presuming that to be eligible for the interest only mortgage you had to show proof that you could repay it?

If you start using this money do you lose the interest only mortgage?

I am sure people will start talking about deprivation of capital but because of these particular circumstances I am wondering whether paying off the mortgage now would be considered deprivation of capital.

My thinking is that if you and your wife will be unable to work in the future and will always be reliant on benefits then you would have a concern about possibly losing your home because you could not repay the mortgage. Plus, the fact that the money was as a result of personal injury and would normally have been disregarded for some time (a year?) and permanently if it had been put in a trust.

I can't help thinking that you were badly advised at the time you received the compensation as it should have been put in a trust or used to pay off the mortgage.

Have you had any adaptations carried out on your house because of your disabilities? Or any other reasons why you couldn't downsize - nearness to receive help from your family?

I think it might be worth getting some help as to your options. You could try and speak to a manager at the Job Centre Plus about whether this would be seen as deprivation of capital. To have it in writing would be best. Don't do anything with the money until you know.

Deprivation of capital is using the capital in order to obtain benefits so you must show that paying off the mortgage is vital to your future well being and not primarily to receive benefits.

It is a long shot but could be explored. Of course, if you are able to downsize then that may be your answer to your problems.

Thanks Lindy, yes it was a condition of the mortgage (they called it a vehicle???) to have the cash invested because of our low income. They warned us about not taking it out as we would not then be able to replace it when the time came to settle up in 2020 and we would be in breach of the mortgage conditions. I telephoned the ESA centre after they said that we can't get ESA and suggested that the easy way out was to pay off the mortgage using the deposit and take it from there. They said they wouldn't allow that. Seems to me that we made a mistake and should have tied our money up in the house and not have a mortgage.
We bought this house to be near our family but it doesn't have any adaptions like stair lift as there aren't any stairs. We had all of the ground floor doors made wider to get our chairs through before we moved in.
If we paid off the mortgage using the capital the bank have, it is because that would be the only way that we could get benefits. We don't want to move, this is the ideal home. We did downsize to get this one as there were too many rooms in the old house for us to keep clean.

jlawrence

Housing_Benefit_Officer wrote: »

Use the capital to clear the mortgage. Sell and downsize.

Thanks HB, we would clear the mortgage if there was any guarantee that we would get benefits. No point in paying it off and having no money to live off if they still refuse us benefits. Why would we want to sell again? We sold our old house to get this one because it is nearer the family and all on one level. We sold our 4 bed property to get this 2 bed bungalow, how far down do we go? A 1 bed flat? Or do we have to move out of the area and be back were we were before we bought this one? Miles from the family.

BillJones

This isn't really being caught between the devil and he deep blue sea, it's more wanting to eat your cake and have it.

If you have the savings, you really need to live off them, and then work to build them up again when you are back working.

jlawrence

BillJones wrote: »

This isn't really being caught between the devil and he deep blue sea, it's more wanting to eat your cake and have it.

If you have the savings, you really need to live off them, and then work to build them up again when you are back working.

Thanks Bill, I can see where you are coming from. However it is very very unlikely that I will ever work again due to the disabilities and sickness problems that I have due to the accident.
The way I look at it is that yes the money is there but it was a condition of the mortgage that it be there always. We could have not taken out a mortgage and used the money instead. Then we would get benefits. If we have to live on that money, how are we supposed to pay the mortgage off if I can't work?
It's nothing to do with cake and eating it. We had the choice of either buying the property outright or take out a mortgage backed up by an equivalent deposit of cash with them. No difference to me. The mortgage has to be paid off in full when I get to 60 in 2020.

FBaby

What confuses me is that you got compensation for an accident, but isn't that usely awarded on the basis that you won't be able to work to pay towards your living costs, and this is what these should go towards, rather than putting aside towards your mortgage (beyond what you would otherwise be paying towards it on a monthly basis)? Similarly, inheritance would count as savings in regards to benefits, so why should it be different only because you've decided to put it towards a mortgage?

I do understand your dilemma and wanting to protect your home, but I think if you were entitled to do that, everyone with savings of all forms could claim that it is not savings but built up contribution towards their mortgage.

xylophone

it is not savings

See post 11.

jlawrence

FBaby wrote: »

What confuses me is that you got compensation for an accident, but isn't that usely awarded on the basis that you won't be able to work to pay towards your living costs, and this is what these should go towards, rather than putting aside towards your mortgage (beyond what you would otherwise be paying towards it on a monthly basis)? Similarly, inheritance would count as savings in regards to benefits, so why should it be different only because you've decided to put it towards a mortgage?

I do understand your dilemma and wanting to protect your home, but I think if you were entitled to do that, everyone with savings of all forms could claim that it is not savings but built up contribution towards their mortgage.

Hi Baby, you are so right. I came to the same conclusion an hour or two ago when I answered another letter on this site. It is no wonder that the DWP have refused me ESA as you are right, the compensation in the main was to provide money as I couldn't work. So yes that is now clear to me and the end of my question. In hindsight we shouldn't have moved as the old house whilst too big, and too far from the family was actually all paid up. We are now looking to sell this new property we are in and downsize to a 1 bed place and use the cash on deposit as a way of paying for our keep. Silly me I couldn't see the wood from the trees. Compensation like what I got is for paying your way. The inheritance is only a small part so I agree it would be capital, it couldn't be anything else.

cbrown372

Shame you need to sell and forgo all those fancy adaptions you made

jlawrence

cbrown372 wrote: »

Shame you need to sell and forgo all those fancy adaptions you made

Thanks brown, yes my thoughts entirely. It is a stupid rule especially as we did have the option of buying outright and then there would have been no mortgage and we would have got benefits. I don't see that widening doors are 'fancy adaptions'???