Benefits questions

NedS

MouldyOldDough said:

This person works as a carer so needs a 100% reliable car but that's besides the point - the real issue is the home - what if she spends a fair amount on the house (double glazing, heating etc etc) - will that be viewed as deprivation of capital ?

Unfortunately no one can answer that question other than the decision maker who makes the decision, based on the information they have in front of them at the time.

All we can advise is for the person in question to make available all evidence to the decision maker, so they are able to make a decision based on that evidence.

Spoonie_Turtle

MouldyOldDough said:

arnoldy said:

bruut what about a £50k car or a £20k watch

What sort of person would be foolish enough to have a 50k car and/or 20k watch when they have less than 16k savings? But I suspect for the purposes of benefits that's not counted. 

Plenty of people have cars and other belongings that they have owned for years before needing to go on to benefits for on reason or another - perhaps, as in this case, a divorce leading to a fresh start where the person has bought a property that needs considerable money being spent on it to make it habitable - and now has a low paying job with some savings

These are serious questions

All that I am trying to find out is how DWP actually apply their Deprivation rules

I was just using "valuables" as an example of pre-owned things

And I would like to ask KxMx - if the claimant is "not allowed" to spend £9k on a car -  how much is acceptible and why that amount ?

Pre-owned things are fine, if they were owned already before the person knew they might need to claim benefits.  So buying your examples of an excessively expensive car or watch shortly before claiming UC would ultimately depend on the facts of the case, but the timing would certainly be suspicious at the very least.  However someone already owning expensive items long before ever knowing they might possibly need any financial help would basically be irrelevant.

As for your example of a car, again the facts of the case are what decides it.  I'm disabled and not well enough to drive, but our family car needs to be large enough to accommodate my powered wheelchair.  Naturally larger = more expensive.  A two-door hatchback isn't going to do the job! 
Someone with children will need one large enough for car seats and shopping at the same time. 
Someone single and healthy but who cares for an elderly relative might need one that's high enough off the ground for their relative to get in and out, which usually = a bit more expensive than a basic cheap little runabout. 
Whereas someone without any such requirements and just literally needs a functioning car to get from A to B would require the least expensive car out of these examples.

MouldyOldDough said:

Where's the cut off ?

Obviously purchasing a gold bar and sticking it under the floorboards is going to far - but what about a lifetimes stamp collectiion or an extension on a property that had been planned for years ?

The "cut off" - or defining factors - are whether you knew you needed (or might need in the near future) to claim benefits, whether you knew reducing your savings would increase entitlement, and whether these were a reasonable expense.  One would be hard pressed to justify a huge step stamp collection or an extension as a 'reasonable expense' if purchased after knowing one may very well need to claim means-tested benefits.

[Edit: missed a couple of previous posts while I was typing.]

calcotti

Spoonie_Turtle said:..One would be hard pressed to justify a huge step collection or an extension ..

I know it's a typo but I'm intrigued by the idea of a 'step' collection! (Also not sure whether it is huge in the sense of extensive or that small steps are not of interest).)

poppy12345

calcotti said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:..One would be hard pressed to justify a huge step collection or an extension ..

I know it's a typo but I'm intrigued by the idea of a 'step' collection!

Sorry but that was funny. Sometimes you have to laugh at those typos.

Spoonie_Turtle

calcotti said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:..One would be hard pressed to justify a huge step collection or an extension ..

I know it's a typo but I'm intrigued by the idea of a 'step' collection! (Also not sure whether it is huge in the sense of extensive or that small steps are not of interest).)

  (whoops!)

MouldyOldDough

Spoonie_Turtle said:

calcotti said:

Spoonie_Turtle said:..One would be hard pressed to justify a huge step collection or an extension ..

I know it's a typo but I'm intrigued by the idea of a 'step' collection! (Also not sure whether it is huge in the sense of extensive or that small steps are not of interest).)

  (whoops!)

It sounds to me more lilke a Batman Villain - THE STEP COLLECTOR - Who travels the breadth of the country, nicking doorsteps - so unexpecting residents fall in the road when trying to leave their homes !

MouldyOldDough

Spoonie_Turtle said:

MouldyOldDough said:

arnoldy said:

bruut what about a £50k car or a £20k watch

What sort of person would be foolish enough to have a 50k car and/or 20k watch when they have less than 16k savings? But I suspect for the purposes of benefits that's not counted. 

Plenty of people have cars and other belongings that they have owned for years before needing to go on to benefits for on reason or another - perhaps, as in this case, a divorce leading to a fresh start where the person has bought a property that needs considerable money being spent on it to make it habitable - and now has a low paying job with some savings

These are serious questions

All that I am trying to find out is how DWP actually apply their Deprivation rules

I was just using "valuables" as an example of pre-owned things

And I would like to ask KxMx - if the claimant is "not allowed" to spend £9k on a car -  how much is acceptible and why that amount ?

Pre-owned things are fine, if they were owned already before the person knew they might need to claim benefits.  So buying your examples of an excessively expensive car or watch shortly before claiming UC would ultimately depend on the facts of the case, but the timing would certainly be suspicious at the very least.  However someone already owning expensive items long before ever knowing they might possibly need any financial help would basically be irrelevant.

As for your example of a car, again the facts of the case are what decides it.  I'm disabled and not well enough to drive, but our family car needs to be large enough to accommodate my powered wheelchair.  Naturally larger = more expensive.  A two-door hatchback isn't going to do the job! 
Someone with children will need one large enough for car seats and shopping at the same time. 
Someone single and healthy but who cares for an elderly relative might need one that's high enough off the ground for their relative to get in and out, which usually = a bit more expensive than a basic cheap little runabout. 
Whereas someone without any such requirements and just literally needs a functioning car to get from A to B would require the least expensive car out of these examples.

MouldyOldDough said:

Where's the cut off ?

Obviously purchasing a gold bar and sticking it under the floorboards is going to far - but what about a lifetimes stamp collectiion or an extension on a property that had been planned for years ?

The "cut off" - or defining factors - are whether you knew you needed (or might need in the near future) to claim benefits, whether you knew reducing your savings would increase entitlement, and whether these were a reasonable expense.  One would be hard pressed to justify a huge step stamp collection or an extension as a 'reasonable expense' if purchased after knowing one may very well need to claim means-tested benefits.

[Edit: missed a couple of previous posts while I was typing.]

Nobody plans to go onto Benefits (if you count someone in a vital full time job earning so litttle that UC are necessary to survive) but circumstances can change at the drop of a hat - sometimes necessitating the use of benefits... All that I am trying to find out is whether my friends is entitled to the help that she deserves and badly needs - she has divorced her husband and her life savings that she took with her from her marriage are not going to see her through to retirement -  her works pension will be tiny too !!

She was forced to buy her own home (partly mortgaged) and that needs a lot of work and her car also needs replacing to allow her to continue at work.

calcotti

MouldyOldDough said: 

All that I am trying to find out is whether my friends is entitled to the help that she deserves and badly needs

As advised, there is no definite answer. The test is whether the expenditure was reasonable in the circumstances and whether a significant motivating factor was to increase benefit entitlement. The intention of the rules is not to prevent people spending their money. Replacing a car and carry out house repairs are allowable. Best advice is to keep records so that if the question is asked in the future the information is to hand to help explain the decisions made. Perhaps take pictures of items that are being replaced/repaired, keep all receipts etc. Paying off debt is never treated deprivation of capital for UC.

Official guidance is here
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1038390/admh1.pdf
paragraphs H1795 - H1873.

poppy12345

As she's working, there maybe no entitlement to UC but it will depend on earnings received each month and other circumstances. Does she pay any rent on her home? does she have any dependent children living with her?

I think the word "deserves" is the wrong word here. People claim benefits because they're entitled to them due to their circumstances.

calcotti

poppy12345 said: I think the word "deserves" is the wrong word here. People claim benefits because they're entitled to them due to their circumstances.

Agreed. The discussion of who 'deserves' to receive benefits is a political discussion. All we can do is advise on who is, or may be, entitled to receive benefits in accordance with the existing rules.