Lived off inheritance then claiming benefit?

HappyMJ

Glen_Clark wrote: »

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.

There's no tax due on £200 of interest earned every week with no other earnings. £200 a week is a gross rate of 5.8%. Careful investing and it's easy enough to get 5.8% with no tax to pay.

That amount of money doesn't all need to be put into safe interest earning accounts. Some risk can be taken with part of the capital. I'd advise her to max her stocks and shares ISA allowance. That's only £15,000 of the £180,000. That amount can be put at risk.

Most people invest in property...i.e the house they live in. Maybe she could have purchased a bigger house or done some required renovations or extensions. The value of the house you live in is excluded for benefit purposes and you cannot be accused of depriving yourself of capital to house yourself as you haven't actually deprived yourself of capital...you are living in it.

missbiggles1

marliepanda wrote: »

Where does it state this individual has learning difficulties?

I'm pretty sure it was a joke.;)

ohreally

Perhaps my sense of humour doesn't travel so well.

Sncjw

Surely if it's a year ago her name will ping up showing she last claimed a year ago. They would question why she has to reapply within a year.

When I applied for jsa all my old information from 5 years previously was still logged even down to what jobs I was looking for back then.

They will question why she claimed so quick maybe even dig out a letter of closure of she wrote a letter.

Her own fault for blowing it and not putting it to good use. Let her learn a lesson. If she is the type to not follow advice often the I would just let her get on with it.

missapril75

marliepanda wrote: »

You're suggesting she has spend over 150k in four months? They're going to find out. Ridiculous to assume they won't.

You appear to have missed the part that wonders whether they know she had it to begin with. It was last year her claim stopped.

People can just stop their claims you know. They are quite free to just do so without saying why.

The reason may not have been recorded.

If the reason was recorded it may not have indicated the sum was that large.

If the large sum was recorded it could still be archived and not available unless on the new claim she refers to it.

DWP does not have some crystal ball that tells them everything about everyone.

If this person stops you in the street and asks you for a quid for a cup of tea, how will you know she spent that money if you don't know she had it?

You might feel it ridiculous that they wouldn't find out. Why do you guarantee they will know? They can't just go into everyone's bank account. Remember, She has not been claiming since last year.

They do not access the accounts of everyone who claims.

If they ask for 6 months worth of statements - other people have experienced this - then, as I said, her balance may have been just a few thousand with the bulk of the money having been spent earlier.

Too many assume that because something can be discovered for some it IS discovered for everyone.

konark

That amount of money doesn't all need to be put into safe interest earning accounts. Some risk can be taken with part of the capital. I'd advise her to max her stocks and shares ISA allowance. That's only £15,000 of the £180,000. That amount can be put at risk.

It's a moot point what she should have done with the money, the fact is it's all been spent on overpriced rubbish!

Mojisola

missapril75 wrote: »

DWP does not have some crystal ball that tells them everything about everyone.

They do have a department which looks at wills. It's not hard to cross-check whether beneficiaries are claiming benefits.

missapril75

Mojisola wrote: »

They do have a department which looks at wills. It's not hard to cross-check whether beneficiaries are claiming benefits.

Yes they do. But not for people who are alive.

What they look at is the value of the estate of someone who dies and see if it matches the declared capital when they were claiming benefits. What prompts this is the notice that a person receiving benefits has died.

They key is something has prompted it. The subject of the OP has not died. By the time anything about an inheritance filtered through that someone might bizarrely decide to check on just on the off chance that person was on benefits and might not declare it carries out that check, the claim will have been closed.

Do you seriously believe that for everybody receiving money from someone who has died a check is made to see if they were getting benefits?

missapril75

Think on this people....

There are numerous threads on this forum started because people suddenly get letters about debts - Social Fund or benefit overpayments - from decades ago.

These generally refer to how the department has not previously recovered these sums despite the fact that people have made benefit claims.

So repeated benefit claims, have failed to pick up the existence of these debts and the possibility they could be recovered.

Even if the existence of this large capital sum was recorded (and as I have said there is no requirement for it to have been reported and/or recorded if the claim is closed) in the same way the outstanding debt is not always noticed, the reason a previous claim was closed is not necessarily noted.

These are no longer the days when a file on someone's desk contains the information and someone may see it.

The files are in a warehouse somewhere, often never to be seen again (if they've not already been destroyed) and the computer records archived after a period of inactivity.

Everything that was ever recorded is not necessarily readily available at the touch of a button.

Ever tried looking for a transaction when you access your bank on line that's too far back? Same principle.

What you'd like to happen and what you would think would happen are not always what happens. Any reading of this forum should tell you that.

In my case over 30 years working for DWP tells me.

stevemLS

teddysmum wrote: »

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.

Which Article of the ECHR entitles someone to a "certain standard of living"?