son has my savings

uk1

masonic said:

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

Sailtheworld said:

uk1 said:

Sailtheworld said:

uk1 said:

Bella2016 said:

back in 2916 I put 16000 in my sons bank account for him to keep for me so I didn’t use it as I wanted it for my retirement then we had a argument over my grandson in November 2019 and in March I asked my son in a text message to transfer my savings as due to the locked down coming I needed to use some of it and he messaged me back saying what money I haven’t got your money I said the 16000 I have for later in my life he denied having it then I said do your not giving it back to me 
then a few weeks after that he said it’s not my money it’s rent money that I saved for him over 5 years where he didn’t even pay that amount in rent over that time and I’m a single parent and a carer to my daughter who has special needs so why would I do this and why would I give all my savings to one of my kids and not the other 2 since then I’ve had a solicitor letter from him saying I’m lying about it’s my saving so I e gone to CBA and the lady was so lovely she helped me with a letter to his solicitor as I have mental health issues I was in hospital last year which my son knows this this is killing me how he can do this to his own mother and to the point I have so many debts I need to pay I’m sitting here with a smashed phone screen my glasses are broken with only one arm in them while my so called son sits with all my life saving doing his house up with his new girlfriend I’m heartbroken 

Sympathies.

You need to get the advice of a solicitor.  Ask the CAB if they can recommend a sympathetic one. Can one of your other children give you support?

There appears to be no dispute that he had the cash only your intentions in giving it to him.  If this goes to court it will be a matter of whose version of events the judge believes.  If you have any texts or letters either between you and him or to others about this cash it will help you.  Do not believe that you need to prove your intentions to a level of 100% certainty and that having little written evidence means your situation is impossible.  Judges are good at testing the honesty and credibility of witnesses by asking penetrating questions. If on balance the judge believes your version is the more likely then you should win.  However before you start you need to be certain that if you win then there are assets or cash that can be used to pay you back. 

Genuine sympathies and good luck.  Do post progress here and as any questions you have. 

This is quite poor advice. The OP's motive for handing the money to the son matters. If it was to defraud the benefits system the last thing they need a judge who is good at testing the honesty and credibility of witnesses by asking penetrating questions. Sure, a judge might conclude they did intend to defraud the taxpayer and it wasn't a gift - mother & son leave the court as confirmed liars.

In the first instance they'd be better off doing what most people would do in this situation. Talking to their son and  trying to reconcile the difference of opinion between what the money was for. Perhaps using the threat of a small claim might help. £16k is too much to use the free mediation service.

The likelihood is that the money has gone forever and there's no point giving the OP false hope of recovery. 

Advice you disagree with doesn’t make it bad advice. 

The £16k is really important to the OP. However, it's probably not worth inadvertently admitting to benefit fraud to recover. That's a potential outcome of your advice.

Please paste where the OP stated they had passed the cash to her son as a benefit fraud. 

There are a number of possible reasons the OP might have transferred the cash to her son, some legitimate, some falling into grey areas, and some falling foul of the law. Some clarifying questions were asked, but so far the OP does not appear to have returned to the thread to read any of the replies.

I personally have no problem with advice being dispensed that would result in justice in an unanticipated form (though I stopped short of offering any advice that could entrap the OP should we not have the whole story). Others may wish for the best outcome from the OP's perspective whatever the circumstances.

The problem with the thread is that many have projected a sort of kangaroo court mentality  based on how they think it might or should work rather than how they actually work. 

Explicitly the idea being put forward is that if a judge listens to all the evidence and decides that the cash was never intended as a gift but was handed over for safe keeping but also thought it was in order to hide the cash for benefits purposes that he/she would then decide not to judge in the OP's favour but punish them and allow the OP's son to keep it. 

It doesn't work that way.

It's important not to jump to any conclusions. On that we seem to agree.

My interpretation of the idea being put forward is not that the judge would conclude that the OP's son could keep the money in the event that it was ruled that the OP had conspired to hide the cash for benefits purposes. Rather, the money would be ordered to be returned and information about the cash being hidden would be passed to the relevant authorities for further investigation. If the money is spent and the son does not have to capacity to repay it in any meaningful way, this could be lose/lose for the OP.

Who do you speculate would be the informant?

I don't know, it wasn't me who put this idea forward. Though I was under the impression that court proceedings were a matter of public record. Is it your position that it is safe to admit to unlawful acts during a court hearing if they are tangential to the hearing?

But you did just post that opinion!

No, I posted what I understood was meant by the idea that was put forward by someone else.

uk1 said:

The chances of there being any repercussions is as close to zero to effectively be zero. 

Well as someone with no knowledge of how these things work, I find that surprising to say the least, but if you are correct then the advice you have given is suitable whatever the OP's motives were. It doesn't sit right with me, but it is what it is.

Why does it “not sit right” with you?

That someone could admit to unlawful activity in court and not face any consequences for said activity.

Is your concern that they committed a crime or that they weren’t punished for it - or both?

This is a wind-up, right? I don't condone any law-breaking, and if someone does break the law then I believe they should face justice.

It isn't a wind-up at all.  Many people that express such views do not see the irony of their attitudes and perhaps hypocrisy  against the background of their own breaches of law.

I take a more empathetic and pragmatic view about some examples of law breaking. There are often understandable reason why people break laws that can engender sympathy in others when they empathise and take the trouble to understand "why" and often lead one to hope that they are not prosecuted.  Many breaches of law have considerable benefits to society and we should sometimes be indebted to those that do so.  In that vein I have little patience with those that espouse black and white judgements on others without first understanding why people do things. 

masonic

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

masonic said:

uk1 said:

Sailtheworld said:

uk1 said:

Sailtheworld said:

uk1 said:

Bella2016 said:

back in 2916 I put 16000 in my sons bank account for him to keep for me so I didn’t use it as I wanted it for my retirement then we had a argument over my grandson in November 2019 and in March I asked my son in a text message to transfer my savings as due to the locked down coming I needed to use some of it and he messaged me back saying what money I haven’t got your money I said the 16000 I have for later in my life he denied having it then I said do your not giving it back to me 
then a few weeks after that he said it’s not my money it’s rent money that I saved for him over 5 years where he didn’t even pay that amount in rent over that time and I’m a single parent and a carer to my daughter who has special needs so why would I do this and why would I give all my savings to one of my kids and not the other 2 since then I’ve had a solicitor letter from him saying I’m lying about it’s my saving so I e gone to CBA and the lady was so lovely she helped me with a letter to his solicitor as I have mental health issues I was in hospital last year which my son knows this this is killing me how he can do this to his own mother and to the point I have so many debts I need to pay I’m sitting here with a smashed phone screen my glasses are broken with only one arm in them while my so called son sits with all my life saving doing his house up with his new girlfriend I’m heartbroken 

Sympathies.

You need to get the advice of a solicitor.  Ask the CAB if they can recommend a sympathetic one. Can one of your other children give you support?

There appears to be no dispute that he had the cash only your intentions in giving it to him.  If this goes to court it will be a matter of whose version of events the judge believes.  If you have any texts or letters either between you and him or to others about this cash it will help you.  Do not believe that you need to prove your intentions to a level of 100% certainty and that having little written evidence means your situation is impossible.  Judges are good at testing the honesty and credibility of witnesses by asking penetrating questions. If on balance the judge believes your version is the more likely then you should win.  However before you start you need to be certain that if you win then there are assets or cash that can be used to pay you back. 

Genuine sympathies and good luck.  Do post progress here and as any questions you have. 

This is quite poor advice. The OP's motive for handing the money to the son matters. If it was to defraud the benefits system the last thing they need a judge who is good at testing the honesty and credibility of witnesses by asking penetrating questions. Sure, a judge might conclude they did intend to defraud the taxpayer and it wasn't a gift - mother & son leave the court as confirmed liars.

In the first instance they'd be better off doing what most people would do in this situation. Talking to their son and  trying to reconcile the difference of opinion between what the money was for. Perhaps using the threat of a small claim might help. £16k is too much to use the free mediation service.

The likelihood is that the money has gone forever and there's no point giving the OP false hope of recovery. 

Advice you disagree with doesn’t make it bad advice. 

The £16k is really important to the OP. However, it's probably not worth inadvertently admitting to benefit fraud to recover. That's a potential outcome of your advice.

Please paste where the OP stated they had passed the cash to her son as a benefit fraud. 

There are a number of possible reasons the OP might have transferred the cash to her son, some legitimate, some falling into grey areas, and some falling foul of the law. Some clarifying questions were asked, but so far the OP does not appear to have returned to the thread to read any of the replies.

I personally have no problem with advice being dispensed that would result in justice in an unanticipated form (though I stopped short of offering any advice that could entrap the OP should we not have the whole story). Others may wish for the best outcome from the OP's perspective whatever the circumstances.

The problem with the thread is that many have projected a sort of kangaroo court mentality  based on how they think it might or should work rather than how they actually work. 

Explicitly the idea being put forward is that if a judge listens to all the evidence and decides that the cash was never intended as a gift but was handed over for safe keeping but also thought it was in order to hide the cash for benefits purposes that he/she would then decide not to judge in the OP's favour but punish them and allow the OP's son to keep it. 

It doesn't work that way.

It's important not to jump to any conclusions. On that we seem to agree.

My interpretation of the idea being put forward is not that the judge would conclude that the OP's son could keep the money in the event that it was ruled that the OP had conspired to hide the cash for benefits purposes. Rather, the money would be ordered to be returned and information about the cash being hidden would be passed to the relevant authorities for further investigation. If the money is spent and the son does not have to capacity to repay it in any meaningful way, this could be lose/lose for the OP.

Who do you speculate would be the informant?

I don't know, it wasn't me who put this idea forward. Though I was under the impression that court proceedings were a matter of public record. Is it your position that it is safe to admit to unlawful acts during a court hearing if they are tangential to the hearing?

But you did just post that opinion!

No, I posted what I understood was meant by the idea that was put forward by someone else.

uk1 said:

The chances of there being any repercussions is as close to zero to effectively be zero. 

Well as someone with no knowledge of how these things work, I find that surprising to say the least, but if you are correct then the advice you have given is suitable whatever the OP's motives were. It doesn't sit right with me, but it is what it is.

Why does it “not sit right” with you?

That someone could admit to unlawful activity in court and not face any consequences for said activity.

Is your concern that they committed a crime or that they weren’t punished for it - or both?

This is a wind-up, right? I don't condone any law-breaking, and if someone does break the law then I believe they should face justice.

It isn't a wind-up at all.  Many people that express such views do not see the irony of their attitudes and perhaps hypocrisy  against the background of their own breaches of law.

I take a more empathetic and pragmatic view about some examples of law breaking. There are often understandable reason why people break laws that can engender sympathy in others when they empathise and take the trouble to understand "why" and often lead one to hope that they are not prosecuted.  Many breaches of law have considerable benefits to society and we should sometimes be indebted to those that do so.  In that vein I have little patience with those that espouse black and white judgements on others without first understanding why people do things. 

Interesting view, though I would posit that it is possible to have sympathy for someone and still wish to see justice done. There are many examples of a loved one convincing an individual to face justice with the greatest care and empathy for them. Some may think benefit fraud is no big deal, few will agree on what constitutes a serious offence worth prosecuting and what should be swept under the carpet. Fortunately we have a legal system that makes these decisions for us, and it is capable of lenience if the circumstances warrant it. It is not for me to judge whether a punishment is warranted or what that should be, but I do advocate that the process is followed when it is established that lawbreaking has occurred. Such a process may be necessary to establish all of the facts.

uk1

If you think about your own reply you might grudgingly agree with my observation that “justice” does not always mean judgement and prosecution.  You have used the word “justice” as though they mean the same thing. 

masonic

uk1 said:

If you think about your own reply you might grudgingly agree with my observation that “justice” does not always mean judgement and prosecution.  You have used the word “justice” as though they mean the same thing. 

I've been very careful not to include prosecution in my comments, as that is a decision that would be reached as part of the process. The term I used was "further investigation". Justice could mean that under the circumstances no further action is taken, but that would be dependent on the circumstances, and I'm using justice in the context of administration of the law.

csgohan4

guess another one hit wonder OP

John_

London7766551 said:

ZeroSum said:

London7766551 said:

ZeroSum said:

London7766551 said:

ZeroSum said:

London7766551 said:

What's with all the condemnation of the OP's decision? It is fairly common for parents to trust their children.

In the past I have been given chunks of money (more than the OP gave) to look after. My parents trust me with their accounts. Sure I have the "power" to take all of the money and do a runner, but this is my parents money and why would I do such a thing? although I am sure it does occur. Most people have a good trusting relationship with their parents. 

Personally if I had children i'd like to think I could give them money to look after as an adult. It is fairly common as I say and if the relationship is good and normal it should be acceptable. In addition my late grandmother gave my mother rights to her account and total control of her life savings, in the event she became incapable of looking after herself, and 10 years later it happened. As I say this happens all the time, the OP was not wrong to do it assuming the relationship was very good prior to now.

To the OP, I would try to talk to your son again and apologise to his child. He is worked up but hopefully will see sense. 

Why?
The only reason really is the aforementioned benefit fraud.

Is it that common? I've never heard of it. As what you're talking about is completely different to power of attorney on an elderly relatives own bank accounts. 

Fraud? I don't see how it would be of benefit to hand over money to someone else. If they can see you have money, they can also see that you have sent the money somewhere else surely. 

Some relatives cannot handle money. ie if they have it they burn it. So they give it to someone else to keep hold of it. I admit it requires trust!

Well it is very common in my neck of the woods. I'd be very sad as a parent (I am not) to have such mistrust over my children.

If you have savings over £16k then you lose benefits. So yes, fraud.

Also if you've managed to accumulate that sort of sums, then you ain't the sort of person who money burns a hole in their pocket. 
I know those sort of people exist, and the handing over of cash to look after is no more than £100 a month just to make Xmas easier. 

I can't see how many people would commit fraud in such a way. The numbers must be very low. Lots of people only touch benefits as a last resort. They will rather burn their savings.
It would be more a case of someone being made redundant, or having some sort of win.

Of course it will be low, as people on benefits don't generally have that sort of money. 
But youre still skirting around the reason for handing over large sums of cash to someone else. There's no reason to do it. The only reasons you've given for handing over cash in general are for people who wouldnt have that sort of money in the first place. 

Redundancy, you'd need that money to live on, so wouldnt hand it over if your claim about burning through savings is true. 
Winnings, potentially comes back to benefit fraud 

People on these forums really are condescending and judgemental. I have already cited an example of my own parents giving me money to look after. It's perfectly sound if you come into some winnings or draw on early retirement funds (before retirement) to keep a chunk of the money. In my fathers case he received around 20k from retirement funds (part of his pension), he used some of this, but being someone who has vast debts he gave me the money to look after simply because he cannot handle money. If he has the power to spend it, he would have. So I kept it in my account until he really needed it. Currently he plans to use it to purchase a van but is not ready to do so yet, so I will keep the money until then. If the money was in his account, he would spend it over time and it would be gone. Should he pay off some of his debt, yes I would agree but he doesn't want to and I am not going to try to tell him how to spend the money. I would ask people on here to have more of an open mind in these matters.

Oh come off it! He gave the money to you to hide it from those to whom he owes it. He’ll be pleading poverty to ask for a smaller settlement figure, or intending to go bankrupt.

uk1

John_ said:

London7766551 said:

ZeroSum said:

London7766551 said:

ZeroSum said:

London7766551 said:

ZeroSum said:

London7766551 said:

What's with all the condemnation of the OP's decision? It is fairly common for parents to trust their children.

In the past I have been given chunks of money (more than the OP gave) to look after. My parents trust me with their accounts. Sure I have the "power" to take all of the money and do a runner, but this is my parents money and why would I do such a thing? although I am sure it does occur. Most people have a good trusting relationship with their parents. 

Personally if I had children i'd like to think I could give them money to look after as an adult. It is fairly common as I say and if the relationship is good and normal it should be acceptable. In addition my late grandmother gave my mother rights to her account and total control of her life savings, in the event she became incapable of looking after herself, and 10 years later it happened. As I say this happens all the time, the OP was not wrong to do it assuming the relationship was very good prior to now.

To the OP, I would try to talk to your son again and apologise to his child. He is worked up but hopefully will see sense. 

Why?
The only reason really is the aforementioned benefit fraud.

Is it that common? I've never heard of it. As what you're talking about is completely different to power of attorney on an elderly relatives own bank accounts. 

Fraud? I don't see how it would be of benefit to hand over money to someone else. If they can see you have money, they can also see that you have sent the money somewhere else surely. 

Some relatives cannot handle money. ie if they have it they burn it. So they give it to someone else to keep hold of it. I admit it requires trust!

Well it is very common in my neck of the woods. I'd be very sad as a parent (I am not) to have such mistrust over my children.

If you have savings over £16k then you lose benefits. So yes, fraud.

Also if you've managed to accumulate that sort of sums, then you ain't the sort of person who money burns a hole in their pocket. 
I know those sort of people exist, and the handing over of cash to look after is no more than £100 a month just to make Xmas easier. 

I can't see how many people would commit fraud in such a way. The numbers must be very low. Lots of people only touch benefits as a last resort. They will rather burn their savings.
It would be more a case of someone being made redundant, or having some sort of win.

Of course it will be low, as people on benefits don't generally have that sort of money. 
But youre still skirting around the reason for handing over large sums of cash to someone else. There's no reason to do it. The only reasons you've given for handing over cash in general are for people who wouldnt have that sort of money in the first place. 

Redundancy, you'd need that money to live on, so wouldnt hand it over if your claim about burning through savings is true. 
Winnings, potentially comes back to benefit fraud 

People on these forums really are condescending and judgemental. I have already cited an example of my own parents giving me money to look after. It's perfectly sound if you come into some winnings or draw on early retirement funds (before retirement) to keep a chunk of the money. In my fathers case he received around 20k from retirement funds (part of his pension), he used some of this, but being someone who has vast debts he gave me the money to look after simply because he cannot handle money. If he has the power to spend it, he would have. So I kept it in my account until he really needed it. Currently he plans to use it to purchase a van but is not ready to do so yet, so I will keep the money until then. If the money was in his account, he would spend it over time and it would be gone. Should he pay off some of his debt, yes I would agree but he doesn't want to and I am not going to try to tell him how to spend the money. I would ask people on here to have more of an open mind in these matters.

Oh come off it! He gave the money to you to hide it from those to whom he owes it. He’ll be pleading poverty to ask for a smaller settlement figure, or intending to go bankrupt.

I do so hope that you never get called up for jury service on anything important ....... 

uk1

masonic said:

uk1 said:

If you think about your own reply you might grudgingly agree with my observation that “justice” does not always mean judgement and prosecution.  You have used the word “justice” as though they mean the same thing. 

I've been very careful not to include prosecution in my comments, as that is a decision that would be reached as part of the process. The term I used was "further investigation". Justice could mean that under the circumstances no further action is taken, but that would be dependent on the circumstances, and I'm using justice in the context of administration of the law.

Respect!  We listened, considered and exchanged.  That is good enough for me!

uk1

csgohan4 said:

guess another one hit wonder OP

Absolutely.  Outrageous that someone doesn’t comeback for a bit of ritual mutilation. 

msallen

uk1 said:

csgohan4 said:

guess another one hit wonder OP

Absolutely.  Outrageous that someone doesn’t comeback for a bit of ritual mutilation. 

There's a difference between not coming back (to read any responses to a post), and not replying having read them.