Housing Benefits Investigation

Housing_Benefit_Officer

TELLIT01 wrote: »

If we take the OPs original post on face value, isn't there an irony that a family with identical income but who choose to spend it all are OK whilst one which lived frugally and saves some of it is penalised? As the OP says, they would have been better to simply have spent the lot.
As has been said many times, the benefits system supports those who don't want to help themselves.

If the O/P had declared the increase in savings as and when they occurred and declared the increase in their wife's income then they would have received the correct amount of benefit. I have no sympathy for someone who has dishonestly tried to exploit the legislation to increase their personal wealth. They are sticking two fingers up to all those who bide by the rules and live on the correct amount of benefits. Whatever now happens to them they deserve it.

fluffymovie

I have to say that I'm astounded at some of these replies. This is a board for those seeking advice not judgement.
Want to slate those on benefits? Watch a documentary on Channel
5 and why not leave MSE for those who
want to help.

HBO I'm surprised that you would quote the theft act as anyone working in our field would surely know that it's failure to declare a change of circumstance that's likely the charge. Never in 15 years of hb have I seen a prosecution for theft and I'm also married to a fraud manager who has never prosecuted on that.
Pure scaremongering.

OP - any money you should not have claimed will be calculated and notified to you. HB fraud is dealt with by DWP now in a lot of areas so they may contact you to invite you and your wife to an interview to explain your side of things.

TELLIT01

To the OP. Take as many bank statements as you can to show when the monies were deposited / transferred into the account. These may be vital in determining the amount of any over payment. Without evidence to the contrary HMRC may assume you had that money for the entire period of your claim.

gayleygoo

We get just a bit less than you do in tax credits, and we probably could save £200 a month for a rainy day, house deposit, whatever. There is no obligation to spend every penny of it day by day, in fact it's only sensible to put money by so that if OH lost his job or we had some other emergency, it would soften the blow and provide enough to manage until another job was found, etc.

However I do know that if our savings were to pass £6k, I'd have to inform HMRC about it, and I think this is the issue here. You can't just save up (potentially) tens of thousands and then claim financial hardship. Of course you can save up loads for your children's future if you want, it'll just affect what you're entitled to receive from the government. Your phrase "it's the kids' money" is untrue - it's not theirs. It's not paid to them and presumably it's in an account that you and your wife have access to if you needed it.

There does seem to be a lot of scaremongering on this thread though. OP, you may have to pay back anything you weren't entitled to, but I doubt there will be any prosecution.

BlueX_2

bloolagoon wrote: »

People don't see tax credits as benefits but if you include those its not everyone but not a few.

Really? They have to provide details of their income to claim and the less they have the more money the welfare state gives them, but some don't think they are benefits?

That delusion will end when that benefit is replaced by the one benefit, Universal Credit.

pmlindyloo

gayleygoo wrote: »

We get just a bit less than you do in tax credits, and we probably could save £200 a month for a rainy day, house deposit, whatever. There is no obligation to spend every penny of it day by day, in fact it's only sensible to put money by so that if OH lost his job or we had some other emergency, it would soften the blow and provide enough to manage until another job was found, etc.

However I do know that if our savings were to pass £6k, I'd have to inform HMRC about it, and I think this is the issue here. You can't just save up (potentially) tens of thousands and then claim financial hardship. Of course you can save up loads for your children's future if you want, it'll just affect what you're entitled to receive from the government. Your phrase "it's the kids' money" is untrue - it's not theirs. It's not paid to them and presumably it's in an account that you and your wife have access to if you needed it.

There does seem to be a lot of scaremongering on this thread though. OP, you may have to pay back anything you weren't entitled to, but I doubt there will be any prosecution.

I am sure you have just made an error but so that people do not interpret your post as written, you do not have to inform HMRC about savings for over £6K. HMRC are for tax credits.

It is the DWP and the council that require notification of savings over £6K - ie. income based benefits (JSA, ESA, IS, HB and CT reduction. )

BlueX_2

teddysmum wrote: »

In this age of computers and internet, it's time that all benefit and tax departments communicated with each other , as this would go a long way to stamping out fraud. No cause to hide behind the Data Protection Act, as information would only be shared among government departments.

Most data has now been shared with the express purpose of stamping out fraud, and to dig back into records over many decades to recover the money owed to the taxpayers.

FBaby

We get just a bit less than you do in tax credits, and we probably could save £200 a month for a rainy day, house deposit, whatever

This forum is a real puzzle at best of time. On one hand you have all the threads about how the new reform about tax credits is going to send families into hardship because despite being expert in budgeting, there is nothing left for them to cut that is not for essential living.

Then you get threads like this one about how you can easily afford to save when on tax credits... so which one is it?

BlueX_2

gayleygoo wrote: »

Your phrase "it's the kids' money" is untrue - it's not theirs.

It is benefits for the children so that they do not lose out because of their parents low income, but is given to the parents. Some parents do use it just for their children, while other parents spend it on themselves too.

gayleygoo

FBaby wrote: »

This forum is a real puzzle at best of time. On one hand you have all the threads about how the new reform about tax credits is going to send families into hardship because despite being expert in budgeting, there is nothing left for them to cut that is not for essential living.

Then you get threads like this one about how you can easily afford to save when on tax credits... so which one is it?

Well, at the minute we have a baby under one so are getting more than we used to (probably where the extra £50 a week comes from, and will be reduced in future). We chose to breastfeed, use cloth nappies that we already had, and second hand clothes so that we could save money for the future, as this forum has often advised. Baby needs nothing yet, but it would be unwise to spend that money frivolously just because it's there.

On MSE and other sites I've often read that a household should save 10% of income - if you can't then apparently you're not budgeting properly. £200 a month is a bit more than that for us, and would get spent when needed. We don't save that amount every month, though I think we should.

Many families might struggle on what we have, but we live in a poorer (crappier) area of the UK, our rent and rates is £400 a month for a 3 bed semi, we don't pay council tax/water rates, run one old car, don't have any TV packages, fancy electronics (besides a very old laptop), no debts, no childcare expenses, I cook everything from scratch, we didn't have a holiday this year, can't remember the last time I bought myself anything new etc. I could go on, but it'd be pointless as it's different for everyone. If someone suggested I hand "excess" money back to the government because I'm too frugal, that would just encourage me to spend irresponsibly. Savings should be encouraged, but I agree there should be a limit as to how much one can have stashed away while still receiving benefits.