DWP "standard threatening letter" post Probate

optimist?

When you submit an IHT 205 to the HMRC after a death they respond to you AND to the DWP with a valuation of the estate : almost inevitably resulting in a belated "threatening letter" to the Executor from the DWP saying that they need to check details of the estate at the time benefit was paid. They also include a form RELB26 to fill in. Unfortunately, or perhaps because no-one ever cared enough to have thought this through, the figure given to the DWP is just that, a single total NETT value (NOT gross, note) without any details of what comprises that total.  That nett total figure will usually include the value of the home of the deceased : making it a considerable number, and thus alerting the DWP to what they think might be a case of fraudulently obtaining benefits. Apparently they have decided that casting a broad net like this is the way to go in recouping (genuine) overpayments for means-tested benefits.

The "threatening letter" also requires the executor to "ensure the assets (on form RELB26) amount to the same figure of £(Nett HMRC stated) which was submitted for probate".

This is functionally impossible as the NETT figure is calculated by HMRC, not the declaring executor who, in response, can only resubmit the numbers making up the originally decalared GROSS figure (NOT the figure they quote). Needless to say this is 'overlooked' by the DWP and no part of the RELB26 allows you to clarify this important point. I recognise that a major part of this process is to warn the executors NOT to disburse the residue of the estate before they have a chance to 'check/investigate' if an overpayment has been made but, in the first instance, they wait until three months after the death before issuing this warning/ letter/form, during which time many people will unknowingly have assumed that granting of probate is enough authority for them to proceed to diburse the estate. And secondly, their form RELB26 does not allow the executor to make the situation clear in that it frequently does not cover elements that go to make up the whole situation : if there is no box to fill in with a point you consider to be relevant then you cannot fill it in.

Finally, "If submitting an IHT205 or IHT400 please supply a breakdown of panels 11.1 and 11.3".  Surely it was the submission of either of these forms to the HMRC which triggered this query from the DWP in the first place? Why would the DWP ask for yet another of these forms at this stage? (And, if you already submitted either form online, how would you gain access to it to even see what those panels dealt with, and how you answered them already?) Under normal circumstances it is almost impossible to contact the DWP by phone (despite them printing a number on the form) and now that the Coronavirus crisis is in full flow it would seem pointless to even try.

Surely by any measure this is a 'system' unfit for purpose and should be addressed at a high enough level to make the two departments collaborate in some joined-up thinking?

And, yes, I am in the throes of this situation - for the second time in the last five months, looking at it going on like this for several more months, as reported by everyone else on this Forum who has had to deal with the DWP.

Any thoughts on the above gratefully recieved.

Optimist?

Dox

optimist? said:

When you submit an IHT 205 to the HMRC after a death they respond to you AND to the DWP with a valuation of the estate : almost inevitably resulting in a belated "threatening letter" to the Executor from the DWP saying that they need to check details of the estate at the time benefit was paid. They also include a form RELB26 to fill in. Unfortunately, or perhaps because no-one ever cared enough to have thought this through, the figure given to the DWP is just that, a single total NETT value (NOT gross, note) without any details of what comprises that total.  That nett total figure will usually include the value of the home of the deceased : making it a considerable number, and thus alerting the DWP to what they think might be a case of fraudulently obtaining benefits. Apparently they have decided that casting a broad net like this is the way to go in recouping (genuine) overpayments for means-tested benefits.

The "threatening letter" also requires the executor to "ensure the assets (on form RELB26) amount to the same figure of £(Nett HMRC stated) which was submitted for probate".

This is functionally impossible as the NETT figure is calculated by HMRC, not the declaring executor who, in response, can only resubmit the numbers making up the originally decalared GROSS figure (NOT the figure they quote). Needless to say this is 'overlooked' by the DWP and no part of the RELB26 allows you to clarify this important point. I recognise that a major part of this process is to warn the executors NOT to disburse the residue of the estate before they have a chance to 'check/investigate' if an overpayment has been made but, in the first instance, they wait until three months after the death before issuing this warning/ letter/form, during which time many people will unknowingly have assumed that granting of probate is enough authority for them to proceed to diburse the estate. And secondly, their form RELB26 does not allow the executor to make the situation clear in that it frequently does not cover elements that go to make up the whole situation : if there is no box to fill in with a point you consider to be relevant then you cannot fill it in.

Finally, "If submitting an IHT205 or IHT400 please supply a breakdown of panels 11.1 and 11.3".  Surely it was the submission of either of these forms to the HMRC which triggered this query from the DWP in the first place? Why would the DWP ask for yet another of these forms at this stage? (And, if you already submitted either form online, how would you gain access to it to even see what those panels dealt with, and how you answered them already?) Under normal circumstances it is almost impossible to contact the DWP by phone (despite them printing a number on the form) and now that the Coronavirus crisis is in full flow it would seem pointless to even try.

Surely by any measure this is a 'system' unfit for purpose and should be addressed at a high enough level to make the two departments collaborate in some joined-up thinking?

And, yes, I am in the throes of this situation - for the second time in the last five months, looking at it going on like this for several more months, as reported by everyone else on this Forum who has had to deal with the DWP.

Any thoughts on the above gratefully recieved.

Optimist?

Thoughts? Probably not the moment to be raising the issue - there is quite simply too much else going on, however sensible it might be.

Frogletina

I had to make phonecalls to the DWP as I was not happy with their form and how to complete it, although I found the probate form easy to do.

I wanted to speak to a manager as the advisor was not helpful and was told i would get a call back.

This did not happened so I rang again and asked again for a manager. 

In a nutshell, the amount of the estate  was more than expected as the deceased had claimed UC a few months earlier ( it was for only about 6 weeks) Obviously to claim that, he had to have capital of less than £16,000, at the time he only had about £200.

When I explained that the estate included a house that was now for sale, she said she thought that might be the reason and closed the case and said there was no reason now to return the form. 

optimist?

Frogletina, Many thanks for your perspective on the DWP, it was encouraging to know that not everyone is dismissive of this (probably) ongoing problem that leaves bereaved people worried and wondering when, or even if, their trials will be over. Unexpectedly, I have just recieved 2 DWP notifications on the same day stating that BOTH of the cases I have been handling are now concluded and that I am free to dissolve the estates of each. I strongly suspect that, due to the present Covid 19 situation, the DWP are now closing ALL cases which fall well under the IHT threshold and concentrating their stretched resources on those whose estates are above that threshold. Seems a shame that it takes a disaster to make them rationalise their practices.