inheritance and benefits

fredandwilma

billywilly wrote: »

I wouldn't say so. This is in fact quite common. They can't understand why an inheritance should have to be spent to live on instead of receiving benefits. It is highly likely that the deceased would not have wanted this to happen. All it does is to relieve the government of paying a legitimate benefit whilst someone else's hard earned money is being used to provide a living instead.
When you look at it that way - would I be happy if what I leave to my children may have to be used for them to live off whilst the government stop paying their benefits - I am in fact helping the government to save money.
What should have happened in cases like this is for the deceased to have made proper provision in the will should any of the beneficiaries be in receipt of a means tested benefit when they died - quite simple and very effective.

I was to receive an inheritance a while ago, but as it was likely that I would be claiming Pension Credit, my father with my help revised his will so that I did not become a beneficiary - my children's family trust became the beneficiary instead. Consequently that capital can never be treated as mine.

billywilly wrote: »

Not at all. As the executor she is responsible to executing the will. If during the course of that duty, one of the beneficiaries comes along with a signed legal document disclaiming their inheritance, the executor is required to comply with that request. As there are only two beneficiaries, the whole of the estate will then pass to the remaining beneficiary.

What the reasons are behind the disclaiming or who gets what after the distribution has nothing to do with the executor they have a job to do and they must do it.
It would certainly be different if the beneficiary didn't bother to get a disclaimer properly drawn up and did 'a deal with the executor' to get round DWP regulations.
Do it all legal and above board and the executor can't be held responsible for who does what afterwards and why.

billywilly wrote: »

She should distance herself then. Don't get involved. Do it the legal way as in my post above.
I along with my sister were the executors of our dad's estate. She wanted to know the in's and out's as to why I had given away my entitlement and had dad change his will. Nothing to do with her, my dad knew that it was to protect myself from being found to have capital either for benefits or care fees. During the winding up of the estate she asked again. I then told her that it was to make sure that the DWP or the LA could not get their grubby little mits on any of it. She accused me of fraud - but where is the fraud - we are carrying out dad's wishes and I get protection.

billywilly wrote: »

errr please explain?

All i said is that it seems that being entitled is the green light to claim anything and everything.
Do I think it wrong - yes, why claim if you don't have a need for the money, why claim if you don't have extra costs because of a disability, why claim if you already have enough cash and taking more serves no useful purpose.
So, based on the majority, I am entitled - so I intend to claim, simply because I can and not because I need the extra money for my disabilities.
No one can complain about that can they as they seem to find reasons to complain about everything else I post.

billywilly wrote: »

Neither am I. I too have been through the wringer with the 'memory clinic' and the hours of tests. No one indicated that a BB would be relevant as it is not a physical disability as such.
Anyhow at the time I had been awarded DLA - High mobility so there was no need to apply to the council. Unfortunately I was refused PIP on the transfer over so had to hand my badge in to the council.

I thought that the new system was so that there is no 'recommendation from a GP' anymore?

As for an OT, where do you get them from? I don't need any help care wise or mobility wise, I can get round albeit not as fast and in pain, but I get there in the end.

billywilly wrote: »

half a dozen gin and tonics sometimes work!

I hate doctors, I refuse to go and when I do it is my wife 'dragging' me in. Yes 10 mins - if you are lucky- it all depends if the previous patient has overrun. The shortest was less than 5 mins. Mind you I m not one that tells all to the doctor, if they want to know anything they have to drag it out of me inch by inch! I simply say 'my wife has brought me and I have no idea why'. It generally works - I'm out!!

Deprivation of capital in order to claim £700 a week from the welfare state?

elsien

billywilly wrote: »

All it does is to relieve the government of paying a legitimate benefit whilst someone else's hard earned money is being used to provide a living instead.
When you look at it that way - would I be happy if what I leave to my children may have to be used for them to live off whilst the government stop paying their benefits - I am in fact helping the government to save money.

It's only a legitimate benefit if someone isn't hiding assets to fiddle the system.
And I would be very happy to see your children living off an inheritance rather than stashing it away and continuing to claim. It's a safety net, there if you need it, not when you don't.

cte1111

If your friend's sister wants to pass the inheritance to her daughter, then she would need to do a 'variation'. This is perfectly legal and is part of accountancy training, e.g. standard advice for tax planning. As your friend is not affected by the proposed variation, then it is not up to her to decide whether or not this is morally correct. A standard document suffices, see this link for details from the government's website.

https://www.gov.uk/alter-a-will-after-a-death

However, this may well be seen as deprivation of capital by any benefits decision makers. This would mean that the sister would be treated as if she still had the capital.

In no way does your friend have any right to claim the full inheritance herself.

bloolagoon

Am I reading the question right?

Your friend is aware that her sister wants to defraud the system and commit a criminal act. Your friend thinks this isn't right but will do it as long as she doesn't have any repercussions.

Your friend is as bad and immoral as her sister if she helps her to commit fraud.

tea-bag

Shakes head! This is becoming so frequent on this forum, nobody ever wants to pay for themselves anymore.

bloolagoon

tea-bag wrote: »

Shakes head! This is becoming so frequent on this forum, nobody ever wants to pay for themselves anymore.

And yet benefit fraud statistics are low so clearly they rarely get caught.

tea-bag

bloolagoon wrote: »

And yet benefit fraud statistics are low so clearly they rarely get caught.

It is amazing how many of the 0.5% are on this forum!

billywilly

fredandwilma wrote: »

Deprivation of capital in order to claim £700 a week from the welfare state?

There is no deprivation involved except in your mind probably.

It's called 'financial planning'.

It's no different to what Cameron's father did with his will. When he died he only had £300,000 left in the bank. The rest (£multi millions) was held in family trusts and banks registered in Panama.
Or maybe Tony Benn, when he died his must valuable asset went straight into a family trust so no inheritance involved there.

To leave yourself wide open to being attacked by the DWP, HMRC or the LA is stupid if you have the option to put into place, a system that defeats them.

billywilly

elsien wrote: »

It's a safety net, there if you need it, not when you don't.

Which is exactly what I have said in the past - that there are those who claim DLA/PIP and yet don't have any extra costs associated to their disabilities. They still claim, because they are entitled.

billywilly

cte1111 wrote: »

If your friend's sister wants to pass the inheritance to her daughter, then she would need to do a 'variation'. However, this may well be seen as deprivation of capital by any benefits decision makers. This would mean that the sister would be treated as if she still had the capital.

She would - it has to take place BEFORE death

In no way does your friend have any right to claim the full inheritance herself.

She does if the other beneficiary gives up all rights to her share AND it is done in a legal way