Benefits questions

MouldyOldDough

poppy12345 said:

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.

She owns the house - so no rent - she has a small mortgage though

No kids

And she earns less than £15k full time working

Thats around £290 per week

I thought that UC was supposed to help people in work (on low income) as well as those out of work

NedS

MouldyOldDough said:

poppy12345 said:

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.

She owns the house - so no rent - she has a small mortgage though

No kids

And she earns less than £15k full time working

Thats around £290 per week

I thought that UC was supposed to help people in work (on low income) as well as those out of work

Using the proposed benefit rates for 2022-2023:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-and-pension-rates-2022-to-2023/proposed-benefit-and-pension-rates-2022-to-2023#universal-credit

If she is a single adult (25 or over), with no children, no rent and no caring or health conditions, then she would be entitled to £334.91/month if she had no earnings.

With earnings, a taper rate of 55p in the pound applies, so 55p of UC will be deducted for every pound earned in that month. Therefore earnings of £334.91/0.55 = £ 608.93 per month would result in zero UC payable, which equates to around £7300 per year.

So our single female is earnings way above the threshold to claim UC based on their circumstances.

calcotti

MouldyOldDough said:I thought that UC was supposed to help people in work (on low income) as well as those out of work 

Yes it does. A significant proportion of people claiming UC are in work (in June last year it was about 40%).
A single person aged 25 or over with no health problems and no rent to pay has a maximum UC entitlement of £334.91/month.  This would reduce to nil if they earn more than £608.92/month.

Spoonie_Turtle

MouldyOldDough said:

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 

Quite often people know that an upcoming change in circumstances may require claiming financial help where possible.  It is sensible for people to make use of whatever support they're entitled to, and part of the point is that when they start looking into it it's difficult not to be aware of the £16,000 savings threshold.  However, people considering reducing their savings to get below that threshold often don't realise the amount of support benefits actually provide - as you've seen for yourself, it's pretty low and not usually worth trying to squander savings (perhaps I should clarify here that I'm not in any way implying your friend did, not at all, it's a purely general comment).