DWP Investigations

zoxsa

Sunny_Intervals wrote: »

As long as he doesn't intend to claim any care costs or income-based benefits in the future and intends to repay anything he was overpaid in the past, I don't see any problem with him giving away money/an asset.

Me too

The xenophobic tripe about how cold British people all are was unnecessary. People are responding to what you said in your OP:

I apologise, but I came to the conclusion from everyone's behaviour that the fact that you assumed that taking his name off somehow reduces his benefits is a strange. We need to take his name off to get a remortgage. Correct? It doesn't mean he will lose anything. The fact you think that as his son my dad will lose his income is baffling... and I think because it could be a cultural difference.

In any case, the judgemental and accusatory nature in which I received the comments was not necessary either. I'm debating your responses or trying to swindle anyone.. I just want to learn and pay what I owe.

You said you don't want to swindle the DWP, but you also want to hide this asset in case the investigation doesn't go your way, which makes it sound like you either don't want to repay the money owed or want to pay it back in small installments despite having £500,000 available.

NO! Where did I say I want to HIDE his assets??!! I want to pay back the DWP but on my terms using a loan or some repayment scheme... I don't want them to seize our home. I THINK THAT IS MY RIGHT!!!!!

--> No. you assume we have 500K available. Why? Maybe we have a huge mortgage on the house. What do you know? How do you know that despite a rental income, I'm not adding money to help pay for the electricity and heating bills that it doesn't cover, and sometimes even the carer when we have 1 extra week in the month where the rent doesn't cover it??? How do you know??

Again, you are upset at my comment, yet you insist to be disrespectful.

I can only conclude your coldness is unintended and hence its cultural.

Maybe indeed its best you break from the EU.

That's understandably going to wind a few folk up.

Look at the judgemental attitude I've been subject to, and the rudeness, and I think you can conclude the cold nature of the posters in here. I believe it is a British trait. Its just my opinion. It doesn't mean you are evil... or bad.. you are just cold.

zoxsa

GlasweJen wrote: »

You can run into several problems:
- the DWP will assume that he has £500,000 anyway (due to you telling them such and the land registry confirming) and billing him for the overpayment. They can deduct from many sources including pensions and even go after estates so they can play a long game then hit you with a huge bill down the line

- if your father requires the use of a care home the council will also assume he has £500,000 kicking about to fund care and won't pay to put in in a council placement.

If you're struggling with debt and your father has a DWP debt and there's a £1,000,000 asset sitting about generating a rental income that clearly isn't enough to keep you all going why not sell it, take your £500,000 each, clear your respective debts and then if your father needs rental income he can buy a different house (or even houses in some areas) outright, rent those out and use that income to pay for care.

Thanks for your reply.

We wanted to sell the house, but due to our ignorance on DWP issues, we dropped the sale and kept it as we thought its best to wait until the investigation has concluded.

happyandcontented

zoxsa wrote: »

Yes, I totally agree.. that's precisely why we didn't sell the house. To make sure we don't owe anything. But I want to pay it back fairly. or in a fair way.

I didn't make this mistake, and yet I will have to pay for it. Then my mother never received a pension - nor carer's allowance - nothing - so they need to take that into account.

I don't think this goes back 10 years.

I will call them Monday and sort this out.

Your mother would only have received those benefits if she claimed them and was entitled to them. They won't check that entitlement now, so they won't take that into account.

Who made the claim that is now in payment? Who filled in the forms?

If your father has been paid a means-tested benefit incorrectly then there will be an investigation and intent will be established. Depending on the findings he will be required to repay all monies overpaid and possibly fined by the courts if the issue gets that far.

In your situation, I would certainly not have relied on letters. Once I had been made aware what had happened I would have made an appointment to see the relevant department to ensure the problem was addressed as soon as possible to minimise the monies owed/possible and more importantly, any action re the possible fraud. Much like an insurance claim you are required to mitigate any issues as soon as you are aware of them. Claim forms spell that out explicitly.

Do that now, get the address and visit the office.

None of the above is anything other than advice to try to help, but it is factual and so you appear to view that as cold. Brits are pragmatic and proactive, however, they don't lack empathy until their good advice and factual comments are denigrated and ridiculed by those who benefit from our generous social security system.

I speak as a former DSS fraud investigator.

zoxsa

Sunny_Intervals wrote: »

I agreed with you and tried to help you understand why you received a negative response. Your response is to yell at me and call me names. Shall I make some sweeping generalisations about your culture based on this?

But take a step back - where did I say I want to "hide" his assets? Why are you painting me out to be crooked?

I will make this abundantly clear:

I want to pay DWP back for anything over paid by them, but I do not wish to use the house's equity to do that. That's my right. When I sent the letter the 1st time, (to highlight the issue of a 2nd home), although I was worried about what could happen, the only thing that pushed me to go and do it was a sense of :"This cannot be right... there is a mistake here and I want to put this straight".

And now to be tainted unfairly with a comment like "You want to hide my dad's assets" - is mind boggling.

We never sold the house because we didn't know if we would have to remortgage it to pay for anything. IF I can get a loan or pay DWP back on monthly instalments or come to some arrangement, I would prefer that, then seizing the house.

I cannot be clearer : I need a remortgage to pay for other debts - and if there is a synergy or other benefits in doing so, then great. And believe me, I will inform the DWP of this, and the reason for the remortgage; and I will be at their disposal, if they need anything.

Yes, please make generalisations about my culture. It's OK. Which European country do you think I'm from?

Newly_retired

I wonder why you are saying “this is my right “ not to sell the house. If a large amount of money is owed that cannot be found without selling the house, surely that is the only way to pay the debts(s)?
Maybe I am missing something?

zoxsa

happyandcontented wrote: »

Your mother would only have received those benefits if she claimed them and was entitled to them. They won't check that entitlement now, so they won't take that into account.

Who made the claim that is now in payment? Who filled in the forms?

If your father has been paid a means-tested benefit incorrectly then there will be an investigation and intent will be established. Depending on the findings he will be required to repay all monies overpaid and possibly fined by the courts if the issue gets that far.

In your situation, I would certainly not have relied on letters. Once I had been made aware what had happened I would have made an appointment to see the relevant department to ensure the problem was addressed as soon as possible to minimise the monies owed/possible and more importantly, any action re the possible fraud. Much like an insurance claim you are required to mitigate any issues as soon as you are aware of them. Claim forms spell that out explicitly.

Do that now, get the address and visit the office.

None of the above is anything other than advice to try to help, but it is factual and so you appear to view that as cold. Brits are pragmatic and proactive, however, they don't lack empathy until their good advice and factual comments are denigrated and ridiculed by those who benefit from our generous social security system.

I speak as a former DSS fraud investigator.

Thank you for your advice.

Well - I will definitely take your advice.

All I can say is , we called and wrote many many times. They asked us to write in actually. So we did - and we kept no secrets. But if my dad received payments he should not have, what is wrong with paying that back??? Why is that a problem?

Im OK to pay it back. Its not like he's gambling the money on race horses with it. If he used it, and it means he needed it, I will most likely be happy to pay it back.

I don't know if I made this clear, but I really called DWP hundreds of times in 2016/17. There comes a point where you need to move on and expect people to do their job.

I will call them again.

I'm not asking for empathy... or sympathy. I'm not expecting to be judged like this. Its very cold. But what is so bad about realising that the brits are cold? So, we know that Scottish people are very warm. The Irish are known to like jokes. The brits love queues - and are very very straight forward people. I like that. But they are a bit cold. So what? No one's perfect.

happyandcontented

zoxsa wrote: »

Thank you for your advice.

Well - I will definitely take your advice.

All I can say is , we called and wrote many many times. They asked us to write in actually. So we did - and we kept no secrets. But if my dad received payments he should not have, what is wrong with paying that back??? Why is that a problem?

Im OK to pay it back. Its not like he's gambling the money on race horses with it. If he used it, and it means he needed it, I will most likely be happy to pay it back.

I don't know if I made this clear, but I really called DWP hundreds of times in 2016/17. There comes a point where you need to move on and expect people to do their job.

I will call them again.

I'm not asking for empathy... or sympathy. I'm not expecting to be judged like this. Its very cold. But what is so bad about realising that the brits are cold? So, we know that Scottish people are very warm. The Irish are known to like jokes. The brits love queues - and are very very straight forward people. I like that. But they are a bit cold. So what? No one's perfect.

You need to visit the nearest benefits office asap. I cannot stress this strongly enough. Take with you all the relevant paperwork.

Brits are not cold in my experience, but they do, on the whole, like people to do the right thing and continuing to allow the payment of a benefit when you knew it was incorrectly in payment is wrong, and they will tell you that.

If you could not get the payments stopped they should have been banked or remained uncashed to show your good faith and to facilitate repayment when asked for.

GlasweJen

The DWP aren't interested in the value of the house. They're interested in how much of an asset your father has.

Basically it's how much equity is in the house that they're interested in, not necessarily the value. You need to give them proof of the equity and proof that your dad owns 50%.

Also you need to watch things like debts against the house, if the debts are your debts then they might not affect your dad's equity. If he owned 50% outright then you took out a secured loan on your half dropping the overall equity the DWP won't take the overall equity and divide it by two as it's not a marriage or civil partnership. They'll just take your dad's share as being 50% of the market value of the house and you're left with your own debts to worry about.

It's not clear if you're renting the house from him or if you're renting it out to a third party but if you're renting from Dad it needs to be a proper rental agreement paying market rate rent. If you're not paying market rates then they'll assess as if he is getting a market rate rent as he is depriving himself of income by renting to family at less than he would to a proper tennant. If renting to a third party he will be assessed on 50% of the rent minus expenses (gas checks, landlord registry etc) as you'll be entitled to 50% of the rent as you own the other 50% of the house.

If you're remortgaging and can't get a mortgage with Dad on the paperwork you'll need to buy him out by giving him his 50% in full. It's the only way to avoid him losing his benefit income and being penalised under the depravation of capital rules. If you buy him out he'll no longer be entitled to collect rent as he will no longer own the house.

zoxsa

GlasweJen wrote: »

The DWP aren't interested in the value of the house. They're interested in how much of an asset your father has.

Basically it's how much equity is in the house that they're interested in, not necessarily the value. You need to give them proof of the equity and proof that your dad owns 50%.

Also you need to watch things like debts against the house, if the debts are your debts then they might not affect your dad's equity. If he owned 50% outright then you took out a secured loan on your half dropping the overall equity the DWP won't take the overall equity and divide it by two as it's not a marriage or civil partnership. They'll just take your dad's share as being 50% of the market value of the house and you're left with your own debts to worry about.

It's not clear if you're renting the house from him or if you're renting it out to a third party but if you're renting from Dad it needs to be a proper rental agreement paying market rate rent. If you're not paying market rates then they'll assess as if he is getting a market rate rent as he is depriving himself of income by renting to family at less than he would to a proper tennant. If renting to a third party he will be assessed on 50% of the rent minus expenses (gas checks, landlord registry etc) as you'll be entitled to 50% of the rent as you own the other 50% of the house.

If you're remortgaging and can't get a mortgage with Dad on the paperwork you'll need to buy him out by giving him his 50% in full. It's the only way to avoid him losing his benefit income and being penalised under the depravation of capital rules. If you buy him out he'll no longer be entitled to collect rent as he will no longer own the house.

This is the part that I don't quite understand from any of the posts.

I would disagree entirely with everything you said. Not because its wrong, but because it doesn't apply to me.

Under the 'deprivation of capital rule', a claimant who deprives him or herself of capital for the purpose of retaining or obtaining entitlement to means-tested benefits (i.e. Income Support, Housing and Council Benefit, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, income-based Employment and Support Allowance and State Pension Credit) will be treated as depriving themselves of capital.

--> this does not apply. Why? Ask me why? OK. I will tell you why: because we are not getting rid of my dad's share so he can continue claiming benefits! The benefits will stop. I will call them to make them stop. I did so already and they continued, and due to my busy lifestyle I just had to depend that someone at DWP had some common sense to investigate this.

I could agree with your statement or analysis IF the situation was that we intended to hide the fact that my dad owns a house and continue receiving PC. But the fact is, is that we want a bill and stop the payments and be free to do what we want with the house...

Then why should the DWP even give us a penny IF we have a 2nd house?? and then if we dispose of that asset, then tell us that we have infractured the depravation of capital rule and can no longer receive benefits?? But we shouldn't have been receiving benefits to even begin with!!

I appreciate your post. I do ; but something doesn't add up, and its most likely due to my ignorance on this subject.

I just want a bill and a way to pay this off.

GlasweJen

zoxsa wrote: »

This is the part that I don't quite understand from any of the posts.

I would disagree entirely with everything you said. Not because its wrong, but because it doesn't apply to me.

Under the 'deprivation of capital rule', a claimant who deprives him or herself of capital for the purpose of retaining or obtaining entitlement to means-tested benefits (i.e. Income Support, Housing and Council Benefit, income-based Jobseeker's Allowance, income-based Employment and Support Allowance and State Pension Credit) will be treated as depriving themselves of capital.

--> this does not apply. Why? Ask me why? OK. I will tell you why: because we are not getting rid of my dad's share so he can continue claiming benefits! The benefits will stop. I will call them to make them stop. I did so already and they continued, and due to my busy lifestyle I just had to depend that someone at DWP had some common sense to investigate this.

I could agree with your statement or analysis IF the situation was that we intended to hide the fact that my dad owns a house and continue receiving PC. But the fact is, is that we want a bill and stop the payments and be free to do what we want with the house...

Then why should the DWP even give us a penny IF we have a 2nd house?? and then if we dispose of that asset, then tell us that we have infractured the depravation of capital rule and can no longer receive benefits?? But we shouldn't have been receiving benefits to even begin with!!

I appreciate your post. I do ; but something doesn't add up, and its most likely due to my ignorance on this subject.

I just want a bill and a way to pay this off.

It's too late he's already received the benefit, the claim will be assessed from day 1 using the capital in the house and the rental income.

You said his wife (your mum) filled in the forms but when the DWP were informed of her death new forms would have been sent to be filled in as the claim would have changed from a joint claim to a single claim, who filled out those forms? Usually these forms involve sending back evidence including 3 months of bank statements, did no one think to highlight the regular rental income on the bank statements?

How did you come to own a half share of a house with your dad? Did he own the house with your mum as tenants in common and you inherited when Mum passed away? If so are you sure there's no lifetime interest for Dad in the property? If there is you might not be able to get a loan against the house as your dad can move back in at any time and there'll be nothing you can do about it.