Recovery from estates DWP

Owain_Moneysaver

You may be able to encourage the DWP to get a move on by complaining through your MP.

muckles

Thanks for all the replies very interesting to hear how others have been treated by the DWP.
I have chased them up twice but still waiting for a response.
I asked them about the selection criteria for a DWP investigation and was told that if the deceased had been in receipt of an income related benefit and their estate warranted grant of probate then they would investigate.
It is therefore disingenuous for the DWP to claim the deceased may have 'been paid too much income related benefit' before they have even looked at the figures.
I asked if the estate of a deceased person, who had been in receipt of income related benefits but whose estate did not warrant an application for probate would also be investigated. I was advised that the family would be contacted only if an overpayment of benefits had come to light prior to the death of the claimant. As mentioned on other threads some banks will pay out substantial sums against an indemnity so those with a few quid are being discriminated against.
I have followed the suggestion made here and have written to my MP. Surely many of these 'fishing trips' cannot be cost effective.

Malthusian

muckles wrote: »

I asked them about the selection criteria for a DWP investigation and was told that if the deceased had been in receipt of an income related benefit and their estate warranted grant of probate then they would investigate.
It is therefore disingenuous for the DWP to claim the deceased may have 'been paid too much income related benefit' before they have even looked at the figures.

To be very pedantic, it isn't disingenuous. "Has been paid too much" would be disingenous, "may have been paid too much" is not.

People tend to require grant of probate if they have significant assets, and people with significant assets often don't get means-tested benefits. Note the "tend to" and "often". People may well have enough assets to require probate while still being eligible for means-tested benefits, but it's a perfectly good reason to investigate.

Would it be preferable if the DWP didn't send any letters to the executor until it had concluded their investigation, which might be months after the executor had distributed the estate, leaving the executor liable for someone else's incorrectly claimed benefits?

Yorkshireman99

Malthusian wrote: »

To be very pedantic, it isn't disingenuous. "Has been paid too much" would be disingenous, "may have been paid too much" is not.

People tend to require grant of probate if they have significant assets, and people with significant assets often don't get means-tested benefits. Note the "tend to" and "often". People may well have enough assets to require probate while still being eligible for means-tested benefits, but it's a perfectly good reason to investigate.

Would it be preferable if the DWP didn't send any letters to the executor until it had concluded their investigation, which might be months after the executor had distributed the estate, leaving the executor liable for someone else's incorrectly claimed benefits?

As I see it the problem is not that they investigate but that they don.t do it in .a timely manner.

Mojisola

muckles wrote: »

I asked them about the selection criteria for a DWP investigation and was told that if the deceased had been in receipt of an income related benefit and their estate warranted grant of probate then they would investigate.

This is what I understand from dealing with Dad's estate - all estates that go to probate are checked against the list of people who have received means tested benefits.

Any that show capital above the set amounts automatically trigger a holding letter being sent - I found the letter to be quite threatening and accusatory and not nice to receive while dealing with a death in the family.

In most cases, there is a simple explanation. In Dad's case, his estate included the value of his house which he had been living in when granted benefits and so it wasn't included in the capital assessment.

With others, they received an inheritance or just kept saving after been granted Pension Credit and didn't have declare these.

I think the holding letter should be phrased more sensitively but it is necessary to warn executors that an overpayment may have been made.

Be_Happy

With Attendance Allowance, make sure that any time in hospital over 28 days has been notified. Attendance allowance stops after this time in hospital and may be reclaimed if paid.

badmemory

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

As I see it the problem is not that they investigate but that they don.t do it in .a timely manner.

Exactly! Anyone even barely good with figures should be able to decide within 5 minutes of looking at the paperwork which of 3 piles it should go in. A nothing to see here pile, a whoops there may be an overpayment here but needs more checking & a this one overclaimed by quite a bit needs a serious look pile.

Savvy_Sue

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

As I see it the problem is not that they investigate but that they don.t do it in .a timely manner.

Absolutely. Even though we TOLD DWP that they had overpaid Dad's AA, their first response was 'no it's fine' and their second was the 'you owe us money pay it at once' letter - several months later.

Be_Happy wrote: »

With Attendance Allowance, make sure that any time in hospital over 28 days has been notified. Attendance allowance stops after this time in hospital and may be reclaimed if paid.

Yes, but don't rely on them stopping it even if they've been told someone is in hospital - in Dad's case Mum had written but they'd done nothing.

Mojisola wrote: »

I think the holding letter should be phrased more sensitively but it is necessary to warn executors that an overpayment may have been made.

Yes, although the letter I saw from a company pension scheme was even worse! The chap had died at the start of the month and pretty much a full month's pension had therefore been overpaid. The widow was told "repay this at once and we won't start your widow's pension until you do." It was SO bald and not sympathetic at all.

Fortunately she was able to repay at once, but how many people might have struggled to do so?

AnotherJoe

I've just received this form no doubt because my mother received pension credit, and as another post points out, probably triggered by her apparent wealth making her ineligible despite the fact that 95% of it was her flat.

The main irritant to me is that the form warns you that the amount should be exactly the same as on the HMRC tax form yet the DWP form omits one of the items on the HMRC one so by definition it should be different.

Another irritating element is that it states that if she was in a care home you need to put down when that stay became permanent, but you can be in a care home without that being permanent.

AnotherJoe

Just an update I've completed the form and sent it off and also taken the DWP up on their offer "if there's anything wrong we'll do our best to fix it quickly" by sending in a separate itemised list of issues with the form and suggested changes .

I shall not be holding my breath for a response but will report back as and when.