Lived off inheritance then claiming benefit?

BigAunty

Mojisola wrote: »

If she was claiming any means tested benefits before receiving the inheritance, she won't be able to claim ignorance about capital limits.

You may well be right. I just dimly recall an example from perhaps a DWP manual which concluded that someone applying for a benefit and being informed they had too much capital would be evidence that they are aware of the limits because their claim was actually rejected on those grounds.

xylophone

As an earlier posted indicated, the DWP/local council have to prove that she has intentionally behaved this way in order to claim benefits and knew about capital limits for benefits.

If a person was previously claiming for means tested benefits, how could he reasonably claim that he did not know that they were means tested (the means test including income and capital)?

Glen_Clark

HappyMJ wrote: »

TWith careful investing she could have earned £200 a week from the £180,000 without too much difficulty so the money could have lasted forever.

How?
If she put it in a safe interest earning account the net interest will be eaten by inflation so in real terms it earns nothing.
Anything else risks losing the capital.

teddysmum

The State seems happy to give free care to people who have been wasters ,while the thrifty are made to pay, so feeling sorry for someone who has run out of money, they will probably, once more, pay up because of Human Rights entitlement to a certain standard of living.

TELLIT01

It's not on anything like the scale of this one, but I knew of a claim being disallowed because the claimant had spent over £25k on jewellery as an investment. For DWP purposes she was deemed to have that much in capital. The fact that she had purchased at full retail price and would only get a small fraction of the cost back if she sold it was irrelevant. It was still treated effectively as deprivation.

ohreally

TELLIT01 wrote: »

The fact that she had purchased at full retail price and would only get a small fraction of the cost back if she sold it was irrelevant.

Could this individual not have appealed on the grounds of having learning difficulties, having little understanding of what they were doing.

techwatcher

FBaby wrote: »

But now seems a bit late. Didn't anyone tell her about deprivation of capital and that she was risking finding herself with no inheritance money left and no entitlement to benefits, leaving her with nothing at all for potentially quite some months if not years?

Depending on what issues she suffers from, assuming that they are serious enough to justify her actions, why didn't anyone apply to take over her financial matters? Her behaviour was putting herself at risk.

Unfortunately we only came across the concept of deprivation of capital recently.

Thanks for the point about applying to take over her financial matters; the situation is a complex one but that is something we will investigate.

marliepanda

ohreally wrote: »

Could this individual not have appealed on the grounds of having learning difficulties, having little understanding of what they were doing.

Where does it state this individual has learning difficulties?

techwatcher

missapril75 wrote: »

All we know is the person is not well. The OP says she has issues. Mental health perhaps?

I didn't really want to go into details but she is alcoholic with suspected mental issues.

marliepanda wrote: »

If her mental health was so bad she should have things in place to stop her. It says sister in law, so I'm assuming there is a partner or at least some other family around her.

There was a husband but he has left her and her oldest child has been taken into care. My wife (her sister) and I are trying to help her but she's the type who always knows best and doesn't listen to the advice of others.

Thanks again for all the responses.

NYM

marliepanda wrote: »

Where does it state this individual has learning difficulties?

I think ohreally was being humorous...maybe.