Sorting out a widow's affairs

getmore4less

As long as you can still get access to repay estate funds there will be no extra liability.
It is unlikely you will need a grant and that just depletes the funds anyway so it would be silly for the benefit people to insist.
A simple inventory and account should suffice.

Contrary to what people might think joint assets are not save with insolvent estates.

Keep_pedalling

getmore4less wrote: »

Contrary to what people might think joint assets are not safe with insolvent estates.

Although HB may be in one name only, the assessment would have been based on both partners savings so I think that is particularly relevant in this case.

Yorkshireman99

getmore4less wrote: »

As long as you can still get access to repay estate funds there will be no extra liability.
It is unlikely you will need a grant and that just depletes the funds anyway so it would be silly for the benefit people to insist.
A simple inventory and account should suffice.

Contrary to what people might think joint assets are not save with insolvent estates.

Care to expand on exactly this applies? Unless the survivor has colluded in the over claiming I don't see how.

Yorkshireman99

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Although HB may be in one name only, the assessment would have been based on both partners savings so I think that is particularly relevant in this case.

Are you saying that the claim must have been made jointly with the obvious consequences?

Keep_pedalling

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Are you saying that the claim must have been made jointly with the obvious consequences?

I am simply saying that to legitimately claim HB the combined savings of all occupants must not exceed £16,000, and in the case of a fraudulent claim by the deceased, the survivors full savings cannot be protected by holding everything jointly.

If the OPs inlaws had over £16,000 of joint savings then some of that can be clawed back. As I have stated before however they can't take everything.

getmore4less

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

Care to expand on exactly this applies? Unless the survivor has colluded in the over claiming I don't see how.

section 421a insolvency act 2000.

margaretclare

confusED wrote: »

Hello,

My FIL died a few weeks ago and as the one married to the only daughter I have had to step in to help sort out the affairs whilst my wife and MIL basically grieve. As is probably usual for 80yr olds all the financial affairs were dealt with by the now deceased.

So as I dig into the bank accounts I reveal that what he told the Housing was not his full finances. They have more savings than you are supposed to and they probably shouldn't be getting Housing benefit. This equates to about £1250pm (as this is a London Flat rent and is nearly £2k).

Her role in all this seems to be to have been allowed to keep all her pension for shopping whilst he paid the bills and topped up the rent. She thinks life will carry on as before but in reality she may be faced with £1k to live on with bills of over £2k! The savings aren't large and will probably only last her a year or two before they are gone. I haven't told her yet.

Now I could just turn a blind eye to this - it is their/her business - but in the last few months whilst he was ill he let money come into the account that he was being paid into by the housing. Therefore the account that previously was declared and fell below the savings limit is now above. So I don't see how she could carry on with the pretense even if she wanted to.

So I am stuck with this bombshell which I will have to explode at some time. This is causing me huge stress. My marriage is being stretched to breaking point as I can sense that my wife would give her mum all her (our) savings to let her continue in this lifestyle to make her remaining years happy. We don't have much and are out of work (not even claiming because we are above the savings limit and I won't "lie").

So my question really is - if someone is above the savings threshold but then burns through it in say a year can they then claim benefits once they are gone? Or when they return to below the savings threshold?

It's all such a mess.

It's such a mess, but it's not *your* mess. There is no way in the world that you or your wife should give MIL your savings.

MIL is widowed. She's not unique. It sounds cruel, and being widowed is cruel - but it happens. Look on the 50+ savers board where there is a 'self-help' thread from widows.

I was widowed in 1992 coincidental with redundancy. For a few years I didn't know how I'd keep the roof above my head. Who stepped in then to look at bank accounts etc as you're doing? It was all down to me. OK, I was a bit younger than your MIL is now. I'm that generation and I never, but never, took the view that 'he deals with it all'. That is just asking for trouble. None of us is immortal.

MIL sounds to be living in a fool's paradise. She thinks life will carry on just as before. I can't see how she can imagine this. Or that the next generation will step in and carry on with the lifestyle she had with her deceased husband.

Never mind about learning the language. Women of all ages should have to learn a bit about personal finance.

Yorkshireman99

Noted. Thanks. Could be rather draconian but I can understand why.

Yorkshireman99

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

Although HB may be in one name only, the assessment would have been based on both partners savings so I think that is particularly relevant in this case.

So would both partners have to have signed the HB claim?

Keep_pedalling

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

So would both partners have to have signed the HB claim?[/QUOTE


You can see from the application form that the claimants partner does have to sign the form.