Housing benefit interview under caution

GirlFromMars_2

NYM wrote: »

Her share isn't worthless. It's a valuable asset and she can easily borrow against it.

She would need the brother's permission http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/Buying_and_selling/finding_a_place_to_buy/joint_ownership

She may have paid that money over to her brother in payment for her share of the house. He may have been struggling financially and not able to raise any further capital from regular sources ?

Yes, that's another possible scenario.

The OP simply hasn't supplied enough information.

The only information she has supplied is that she was claiming HB on a property owned by her brother and that at some point, he transferred part ownership of that property to her.

To be allowed to claim HB on a property owned by a close relative, he/she would need to provide proof that she was paying rent on a commercial basis and all that such a tenancy conveys.

What we do know is that as soon as her name was added to the property deed, she no longer had any legitimate claim to Housing Benefit. She continued to claim for a further 4 years.




Attempting to read between the lines is pointless...

You're right, we simply don't know what really happened. But I think it's unfair for the assumption that "She deliberately committed fraud & benefits from the situation (without reservation)." to stand without admitting there are other possibilities.

Ultimately she is on the title deed to the property which gives her some benefit from the property. But we can't assume that gives her an automatic 50% share in the property. We can't assume that the brother would agree to a sale.

If the brother won't agree to a sale the only way she would see any of this money again would be to force the sale of the property. This would cost in solicitors fees. And perhaps more importantly for someone in a vulnerable position who clearly relies on family support it would cost considerable good will within her family.

If this was a fraud they sat down & thought about before committing then they are insane.

If it's a mistake they simply didn't think about they were really stupid.

And I agree with the previous poster, if a malicious brother/SIL really wanted to ruin his sister's life this would be a very effective way of achieving that.

iammumtoone

NYM wrote: »

Her share isn't worthless. It's a valuable asset and she can easily borrow against it.

It's not that easy to borrow against a house. When I said worthless it was bad choice of words what I mean is she can't go to tescos and pay for her shopping with a share of the house. It is only worth something to her once sold and this may not be possible.

kingfisherblue

Well, the OP still hasn't answered a number of the questions asked - for example, several posters have asked if she is the sole person on the deeds, or if she is jointly on them with her brother. She has also confused dates of HB reviews (but only said this when inconsistencies have been pointed out).


It may be genuine, but then again, I'm thinking that maybe, as Christmas approaches, 'tis the season to be jolly' (troll-ol-ol-ol-ol, ol-ol-ol-ol).


OP, if you are genuine, maybe you could start by reading through the thread and answering questions that have been asked. Having said that, I don't think that anyone in these circumstances could avoid prosecution as well as opening a Pandora's box of legal problems for the brother.

FBaby

It's not that easy to borrow against a house. When I said worthless it was bad choice of words what I mean is she can't go to tescos and pay for her shopping with a share of the house. It is only worth something to her once sold and this may not be possible.

That's the same argument with any homeowners, but the rules remain that you can't get HB if you are a home owner, regardless of how easy it would be or not to sell the property and raise cash from it.

I agree with Kingfisherblue, the selectiveness in OP's responses and share of information makes me believe that they are not as innocent in the whole thing as they claim. Not sure they are a troll though

Housing_Benefit_Officer

FBaby wrote: »

That's the same argument with any homeowners, but the rules remain that you can't get HB if you are a home owner, regardless of how easy it would be or not to sell the property and raise cash from it.

I agree with Kingfisherblue, the selectiveness in OP's responses and share of information makes me believe that they are not as innocent in the whole thing as they claim. Not sure they are a troll though

The only owners who can claim Housing Benefit are Housing Association shared ownership properties where the owner can claim help towards the rental element, caravan, houseboat or mobile home owners can claim Housing Benefit for pitch or mooring fees.

NYM

GirlFromMars wrote: »

She would need the brother's permission http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/Buying_and_selling/finding_a_place_to_buy/joint_ownership

Yes she would.

An alternate 'what if' might be that if her brother was in some financial difficulty and his creditors placed a charge on his property, 'only' his share would be considered.

GirlFromMars wrote: »

...And I agree with the previous poster, if a malicious brother/SIL really wanted to ruin his sister's life this would be a very effective way of achieving that.

-Or- they considered all options and colluded together to falsely claim housing benefit.

dippy3103

It's more simple than that... She didn't tell the council she was now an owner /part owner of a property which she claimed HB for. Or put another way, she failed to report a change in circumstances. The terms of her occupation of the property.

She may have mitigation but the offence has been commited.

NYM

dippy3103 wrote: »

It's more simple than that... She didn't tell the council she was now an owner /part owner of a property which she claimed HB for. Or put another way, she failed to report a change in circumstances. The terms of her occupation of the property.

She may have mitigation but the offence has been commited.

In-a-nutshell...:)

Ames

I don't think it is a troll thread. It's too far fetched and unbelievable. Truth is stranger than fiction and all that.

GirlFromMars_2

NYM wrote: »

Yes she would.

An alternate 'what if' might be that if her brother was in some financial difficulty and his creditors placed a charge on his property, 'only' his share would be considered.

So far as I can see the only reason she would have been put on the deeds is for the brother to hide his assets. Either from his wife, or as you say another creditor.

-Or- they considered all options and colluded together to falsely claim housing benefit.

I don't see how she would have ended up on the title deeds in this situation.

If they knew they were claiming falsely in the first place, why on earth would they make a change that would only be more likely to bring that situation to light? The brother was already receiving a nice little earner from the Housing Benefit money. If they'd waited until they thought they'd defrauded enough money from the taxpayer, ended the HB claim and then added the sister to the title deed at a later date (or on his death) they wouldn't be in this situation.

If they knew they were defrauding the taxpayer adding her to the title deed was really really stupid, and they obviously hadn't thought through the implications.

Whether deliberate or not, the sister failed to inform about a change in circumstances, and will, I suspect, have to pay back the HB in full. At least in this instance she is on the title deed, so may be able to claw back some of that money from her brother. How easy that will be though is another question.