We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
My Mum continually refused benefits, please help me to help her
Comments
-
In_despair wrote: »I've heard of deprivation of capital but not notional capital
But it need not be the whole thing.
There are many factors to consider for deprivation - knowledge of benefits is one of them. It's the one area of benefits where "ignorance of the rules" might be an excuse.
Having said that, being told you no longer qualify because of the capital reported, is a bit more problematic on a subsequent claim than, say, blowing your redundancy money and then making your first ever claim and not having any prior experience of the rules.
The focus here might be better applied to how much money they say she has.
Obviously they'll accept spending at benefit level (including full rent) for the period involved. If they then accept there was a need for items bought (there could be any number of reasons for redecorating and purchase of new things) then they'll accept some of the money has gone legitimately.
With more information and some persuasive arguments, they might accept enough spending was reasonable over the period to decide that she should still have over £16k but that the point at which they'd accept less than that and, thus, have an entitlement albeit at a reduced rate - may not be that far off.
There may be no proof of the loan shark aspect, but if it was a known activity in the area, they might well accept her version of repayments knowing proof was impossible.0 -
In_despair wrote: »Thanks for replying, I really appreciate it. I forgot to say I have already sent an expenditure list to HB and JSA and have enclosed one alongside the bank statements to ESA.
Can I ask why an expenditure list was sent to the DWP and local council when they hadn't even flagged up deprivation of capital issues? Or do you mean that you sent bank statements to show the low balance in them? I can't understand why a note about where she spent her money would play any part in a formal application for HB or JSA.
Have they actually raised deprivation of capital with her at all? I can't tell if they are truly so dense that they cannot accept she has no money whatsoever or if they have decided to treat her as having 16k in capital under the notional capital calculations (in which case she can wave all the statements she likes at them).In_despair wrote: »
I've got a feeling she was on income support before, but not 100%. .
Did she suffer from ill-health before her windfall or was she in any kind of employment? Does she live on her own? IS would be unusual for someone in your mum's position.
Income support tends to be a top-up benefit for some households on incapacity benefit or its replacement (ESA), disability living allowance or its replacement (PIP). It's also paid to lone parents whose youngest child is under 5.
It's generally not paid at all to adults of working age without disabilities, sickness or dependents. I've come across the odd case of someone claiming IS instead of IB but got the impression that the authorities are now much better at streaming them into JSA or ESA, for example.In_despair wrote: »I've heard of deprivation of capital but not notional capital, so I will research that later. I agree that it could be seen as deprivation of capital as even I can't believe how fast she has spent the money, but it's not like she bought new cars, had expensive holidays etc it's just...gone.
The DWP/local council may not even go down the deprivation of capital route, anyway. We are only flagging up a potential response to your mother's spending, it might not happen.
Note that the authorities have to be satisfied that the claimant has deliberately done this and look for signs of intentionality. For example, the claimant is aware of capital limits because they were previously a claimant or because they had a previous claim rejected on the grounds of having too much capital. It's a really complex area.
They sometimes rule against households who have paid off a debt early when there was no legal requirement for them to do so.
For example, when someone puts their entire redundancy money or inheritance into their mortgage instead of sticking to normal payments. You can see their point of view 'Dear Local council, I've just put £50k into my mortgage. Please give me a full council tax discount as I am now too poor to pay towards the local services I use. Dear DWP, please give me income based JSA as I no longer have a job nor a penny to my name'.
The local councils are also sick and tired of elderly home owners gifting their investments and properties to their children, trying to avoid paying for their residential care.
I don't think there should be a major issue with new furniture, decoration, household repairs, etc, which is all typical spending on ordinary items. It's a shame she has so little proof of what she bought - the younger generation tend to pay for major items using debit/credit cards which leave at least some kind of trail.
It sounds like she had a spree, compared to her normally much lower standard of living, perhaps even subsistence standard of living on benefits, but average earnings are around 25k so there are plenty of people who spend that as the norm.0 -
Have they actually raised deprivation of capital with her at all?
Since the latest claim was made with only a low balance declared - the OP says now £20 - and the DWP says over £16k, they are saying there's notional capital.
They've either just assumed enough is still there to be over £16k or they have done a diminishing capital calculation and decided there is still more than £16k there.
That only happens when deprivation has been decided. If deprivation hadn't been decided, they wouldn't assume notional capital.0 -
missapril75 wrote: »I'm guessing yes.
Since the latest claim was made with only a low balance declared - the OP says now £20 - and the DWP says over £16k, they are saying there's notional capital.
They've either just assumed enough is still there to be over £16k or they have done a diminishing capital calculation and decided there is still more than £16k there.
That only happens when deprivation has been decided. If deprivation hadn't been decided, they wouldn't assume notional capital.
Yes, there's something a little odd about the scenario presented (the preparation of a defence of the sums spent when there has been no explicit mention of a DoC investigation by the OP.)
It is being presented here as a simple case of the benefit authorities misunderstanding the current financial position of there claimant, nothing more than an admin error on their part, that they are using out of date information on her capital.
However, you would have thought that if the DWP/local council had launched a Deprivation of Capital investigation, found the OPs mother guilty of this and then applied a notional capital sum, the claimant would have been notified and the OP would have made this issue clear on their thread. Surely there is some kind of interview or process for a case like this, not just a summary 'well as far as we are concerned you have 16k in your accounts, end of'.
I am not an expert in the DoC area but I would assume that they would have clearer communication of this issue to the claimant rather than just a blanket 'you've got 16k so we are refusing all your means tested claims'.
To the OP - do you think your mother is telling you everything?0 -
Yes, there's something a little odd about the scenario presented......
I think you may be reading too much into this - although things are a bit different to when I left.
In the days of files being held in the office it would be very easy to see that a previous claim ended a couple of years earlier because of £50k in the bank. In more recent times where documents are stored off site and governments always taking shortcuts in these matters and doing things on the cheap (with inadequate computer systems) it was never so easy to see immediately why a previous claim had closed.
So where someone had a large sum of capital previously and no longer did, they could truthfully declare no capital on their latest application, with no hint of trying to hide the fact they previously did, and it might well never come to light that the money had existed. But it might and when it does it may well be after initial processing.
The OP says her mum was originally advised she'd qualify and then got told she wasn't due after all.
Although the department now seems to be able to access bank records in a way impossible in my day, I think it a bit of coincidence if that was what happened in this case - or sheer bad luck - so I'm thinking this was a typical case of processing based on the details on the claim and then (for any number of reasons) someone noticed there had been £50k on the previous claim. It happens.
It is possible at this point that with a sum like that they would simply take the view that either the money was still there or that it was highly unlikely they'd accept it was not deprivation and disallow the claim anyway, so why not go straight to a disallowance. Past knowledge of the individual might have a bearing on this approach and if she disagrees, they can still look at it again.
More likely they will ask questions - either by mail, phone or interview. If there are no receipts (which people would normally keep for things under guarantee) and/or a lack of detailed explanation even the most sympathetic person is unlikely to see it as reasonable.
The thread title ("continually refused") suggests to me that there has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing but never with enough to allow a more favourable decision.
In that earlier post of mine (at 2.22) based on the spending mentioned, it was my original intention to list some costs but even allowing some top of the range goods, like £1500 for a cooker instead of £400, it quickly became clear I wasn't going to get close to 'spending' £30k let alone the whole £50k.
She's in a LA house - so it's not like there have been renovations - redecorating costs, carpets and a few electrical items don't really account for it.
Without a lot more detail, assuming notional capital over £16k is a very easy decision to come to. And the decision letters probably don't differentiate between real and notional.
If a detailed explanation was asked for, then it would.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards