How can we Protect my Sister's Inheritance

chesky

But, speaking hypothetically, supposing the inheritor had not been informed of the bequest by the executor until all the rigmarole had gone through. What would be the difference to having been informed that they might get some kind of bequest?

anmarj

It does not need to be declared until it hits her bank account, that is when she must informed them, the house, as it is up for sale, should be disregarded until it has been sold, and again the money hits her account.

Yorkshireman99

chesky wrote: »

But, speaking hypothetically, supposing the inheritor had not been informed of the bequest by the executor until all the rigmarole had gone through. What would be the difference to having been informed that they might get some kind of bequest?

Obviously if the beneficiary does not know they can't declare it! In those circumstances once the claimant did know then they should declare it at once. In such circumstances I would not expect any penalty but any overpayment would have to be repaid.

Mojisola

willieormandsheroes wrote: »

I have been telling her yesterday and today that the key date was yesterday - in that this was the first point that she would had access to the legacy from my mother's estate - even although funds were not actually in her own bank account.

Please report back when she hears from the DWP about the date her benefits will be affected.

willieormandsheroes

I will most certainly report back. I admit to being surprised that there is no clear view, and some actual disagreement, as I'd have thought our situation was fairly common.

securityguy

chesky wrote: »

But, speaking hypothetically, supposing the inheritor had not been informed of the bequest by the executor until all the rigmarole had gone through. What would be the difference to having been informed that they might get some kind of bequest?

I have quoted the precise wording either on this or a related thread, but I'll repeat it from memory. The Decision Maker's Handbook defines the point at which the claimant has the money as being the earlier of either the actual payment, or the point at which the payment should have been made had the executors acted properly. The latter is obviously somewhat subjective, and of course there is a gaping hole in this rule if the executors defraud the beneficiary.

However, the DMH rules are not exhaustive: they provide support and consistency, but in cases that are not covered the decision maker takes a decision on the facts in front of them. The claimant has a right of appeal. If they do appeal, eventually a tribunal rules; that's then fed back into the next edition of the DMH.

MisterMuso

My sister was married to a control freak like this, who ended up changing the locks to the house while she was at work, selling all the furniture, and absconding overseas taking the children with him. He also attempted to clear out all of their joint savings and wrote to her employer accusing her of wrong-doing, resulting in her losing job (and the one after that). Your sister should get as far away from this man as possible. I hope it works out for her.