Any Legal comeback on me if i agree to Deed of Variation???

Sea_Shell

Hi All, I've been asked to agree to a Deed of Variation, which on one hand I have no problem with, but on the other, am a bit worried that I'm opening myself up to problems by agreeing to it.

Basically, I know that it's only being requested so that another beneficiary won't inherit directly, and therefore can continue to claim benefits. Can Solicitors do this if they are aware of the circumstances??

Aside from the 'moral' dilemma....Can this come back to bite me on the **** in the future??? I really don't want to be "aiding and abetting". :A

Thanks everyone in advance of your thoughts.

molerat

I doubt anything can be put on you providing the money is genuinely not going to the other person - ie not going to them by the back door. If the other person has also to agree to it there may be a case for them to be assessed as if they had received the money and their benefits reduced accordingly.

melanzana

I don't think a DOV will help the person avoid losing their benefits. I believe the law considers the person to have taken the inheritance, and subequently varied it.

I think the person concerned/solicitor should check that out asap.

Keep_pedalling

I would point out to them that this is deprivation of assets, and that it does not get them off the hook.

It is unlikely that you would end up in trouble, but it should trouble your conscience if you agree to it knowing that the sole purpose of it is to fraudulently claim benefits.

Yorkshireman99

Sea_Shell wrote: »

Hi All, I've been asked to agree to a Deed of Variation, which on one hand I have no problem with, but on the other, am a bit worried that I'm opening myself up to problems by agreeing to it.

Basically, I know that it's only being requested so that another beneficiary won't inherit directly, and therefore can continue to claim benefits. Can Solicitors do this if they are aware of the circumstances??

Aside from the 'moral' dilemma....Can this come back to bite me on the **** in the future??? I really don't want to be "aiding and abetting". :A

Thanks everyone in advance of your thoughts.

It will not help the person concerned as it will still affect their benefits.

securityguy

Sea_Shell wrote: »

Basically, I know that it's only being requested so that another beneficiary won't inherit directly, and therefore can continue to claim benefits. Can Solicitors do this if they are aware of the circumstances??

Aside from the 'moral' dilemma....Can this come back to bite me on the **** in the future??? I really don't want to be "aiding and abetting". :A

Thanks everyone in advance of your thoughts.

Solicitors shouldn't do it knowingly, but may not know the implications of what is being proposed.. It's a complex dance of responsibility as the person who is being encouraged to engage in deprivation of assets (the benefit claimant) may not be their client, and they don't have to investigate the circumstances.

You are not liable, even if you do it in full knowledge of what is behind the proposal. You are not your brother (or cousin, or whatever)'s keeper, and you will not benefit from the proposed deprivation of assets.

The benefit claimant is going to get a big surprise when they are assessed for means tested benefits as though they still had the legacy. You cannot use a DoV to refuse a beneficiary and escape deprivation of assets: you will be assessed as though you received the asset.

I am normally sceptical about some of the more convoluted claims of deprivation of assets. This isn't a convoluted example: it's straightforward DoA.

getmore4less

In what context are you involved?

Unless you are a beneficiary that is giving up some of yours nothing to do with you.

If it changes IHT then if you are an administrator you need to agree.

Other issues already covered.

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

Solicitors shouldn't do it knowingly, but may not know the implications of what is being proposed.. It's a complex dance of responsibility as the person who is being encouraged to engage in deprivation of assets (the benefit claimant) may not be their client, and they don't have to investigate the circumstances.

You are not liable, even if you do it in full knowledge of what is behind the proposal. You are not your brother (or cousin, or whatever)'s keeper, and you will not benefit from the proposed deprivation of assets.

The benefit claimant is going to get a big surprise when they are assessed for means tested benefits as though they still had the legacy. You cannot use a DoV to refuse a beneficiary and escape deprivation of assets: you will be assessed as though you received the asset.

I am normally sceptical about some of the more convoluted claims of deprivation of assets. This isn't a convoluted example: it's straightforward DoA.

All solicitors are officers of the Court and as such are skating on thin ice if they knowingly aid such a scheme. The problem is proving it.

konark

Unless you have been asked to be a witness I am struggling to see what a DOV has got to do with you. The only person who needs to sign is the DOV is the beneficiary who wishes to give his inheritance to another ( and 2 witnesses)

Simply being a witness will not cause you any problems.

If this is being done by a solicitor then they are probably unaware that the beneficiary is receiving MTB or that if they are this will be seen as DOC as this isn't really their world.

Sea_Shell

I'd read that ALL beneficiaries of a will had to agree to a DoV, regardless of whether it actually effects them personally or not. Is that not so?

I'm glad to read though that it's "none of my business" what goes on, so for sake of not rocking the boat, i'm going to agree and leave it at that.

Thanks Everyone.

Yorkshireman99

It might be worth telling those concerned that it will not have the effect they expect it to.