Housing benefit interview under caution

kingfisherblue

I am on benefits, although not HB. On every letter, there is a statement that says all changes in circumstances must be reported. OP, this was a change in circumstances, one that directly affects HB. I have no experience in what will happen if not reported, but I don't think you can claim absolute ignorance. At the very least, you should have raised the question of whether HB could be affected.


As it is likely to be a large amount, I do think that you need legal advice. Do you have legal cover on your contents insurance? I am, of course, assuming that you have insurance, but sadly I fear that the answer is that you don't. As a (part) home owner, you should also have buildings cover, especially if there is a mortgage on the property. I know I am making another assumption, but I guess that you don't have buildings cover, although your brother might. Does the insurance company know that it isn't him living there though? This could have further complications than possible benefit fraud.

FBaby

merlin68 wrote: »

That wouldn't make any sense though as if brother still had his name on property, the sister in law would still have a claim to it.

This is what I raised earlier, and the reason why I think there is a lot more to the story than what has been shared.

cte1111

Poppie68 wrote: »

I have no idea how the process of adding names to property Deeds works but I would imagine it involves the new addition to sign paperwork and maybe a solicitor being present and finances questioned, which in turn would lead to the subject of hb????

If a property is unmortgaged, then you can transfer ownership by filling in a number of Land Registry forms. This can be done without a solicitor, we did this a few years ago and it went smoothly. A proof of identification form will also need to be completed, which must be verified by a conveyancer or Land Registry staff member. So it is possible to complete a property transfer without a solicitor or any financial questionnaire, although it does involve signing a number of official forms.

Ames

There's often threads on the Marriages board by people who haven't a clue about the legalities of marriage, what spouses become entitled to etc. If someone doesn't even realise putting a name on the deeds makes them an owner, then they're unlikely to know about beneficial interest etc.

CACHAF

Do you claim any other income based benefits eg income support, jsa etc? If so you may be in trouble with them too as the house could be classed as a valuable asset and above the threshold for benefits. This could be an even bigger problem.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

CACHAF wrote: »

Do you claim any other income based benefits eg income support, jsa etc? If so you may be in trouble with them too as the house could be classed as a valuable asset and above the threshold for benefits. This could be an even bigger problem.

The house you live in is disregarded. If he vacated then he would own 50% of the capital value.

FBaby

Ames wrote: »

There's often threads on the Marriages board by people who haven't a clue about the legalities of marriage, what spouses become entitled to etc. If someone doesn't even realise putting a name on the deeds makes them an owner, then they're unlikely to know about beneficial interest etc.

I was referring to the brother. It doesn't take a genuis to realise that if you are concerned about your spouse's rights on your property, than giving away half of it will still give them some right on the other half!

Also, OP said that the decision was made so that OP's wife couldn't kick them out. Surely if they had a proper rental agreement (which would have been a requirement for HB anyway), and the agreement was between the brother and OP, then no-one else but the brother could kick them out?

The wife wouldn't have been able to sell the property without her husband's consent either, so the whole explanation makes no sense at all. I just don't believe the explanation for why OP's name was put on the deeds.

merlin68

I just find the whole thing to be bizarre. None of it makes any sense whatsoever. Especially the bit that op didn't realise she didn't need to declare it to Hb.

JencParker

deannatrois wrote: »

I don't think the OP was deliberately defrauding HB.., I do wonder why the brother didn't just leave the house in his will to the OP (seems a bit strange). But intentional or not, it was fraud as the OP has had some ownership of the house for four years. I think the OP probably blinded themselves to possible outcomes. Secure house and the brother's mortgage gets paid. Everyone benefits.., until someone in housing finds out. It also brings into question whether the OP had any right to HB under contrived tenancy rules. The OP should have been asking questions four years ago really.

I doubt the OP is facing prison.., it could happen, but its not a definite (I'd think it was not the likeliest outcome.., but that's just my opinion). But I don't have a doubt the OP will have to pay four years HB back, and won't get anymore. How will the rent be paid?

This is when 'winners' become losers.

If there was a mortgage on the property, then how was the OP's name added to the deeds? I thought that only those on the mortgage could be on the deeds?

catgil

This doesn't make sense! Were you claiming HB to pay your half of the mortgage????