Inheritance disclaim and benefit entitlement

AprilKid

Hi everyone,

If someone disclaimed their inheritance whilst not receiving any state benefits and being in good health.
Are they later able to claim any means tested benefits, due to health issues?

This has happened to a neighbouring friend down the street and he's worried sick that now he's not entitled to anything. From what I understand, at the time he felt the other beneficiaries were more deserving and made a formal written declaration before the 2 year death anniversary of the testator. 
Many thanks

April 

p00hsticks

Yes, I think it's possible that it would be treated as deprivation of benefits and any means-tested benefits claim acted on as if he still had the money.

Though I'm not sure if it's the type of question that would be routinely asked during a benefit claim, nor how DWP would be aware of it otherwise (not that I'm advocating not making them aware of it). 

PIP (Personal Independence Payment) is a benefit for those with health issues and isn't means tested.

Mojisola

AprilKid said:

If someone disclaimed their inheritance whilst not receiving any state benefits and being in good health.

Are they later able to claim any means tested benefits, due to health issues?

This has happened to a neighbouring friend down the street and he's worried sick that now he's not entitled to anything. From what I understand, at the time he felt the other beneficiaries were more deserving

For deprivation to be proved, the DWP would have to show that he refused his inheritance in order to become eligible for means tested benefits.  That doesn't sound likely in this case.

elsien

How long ago was this? 

castle96

just keep schtum!

SeniorSam

Within the 2 years from death, if a Deed of Variation was done and the new Will did not leave anything to a previous beneficiary, then they will not have inherited it. It would be as if he was never included as a beneficiary.

It would not affect the benefits as far as I am aware.

p00hsticks

SeniorSam said:

It would be as if he was never included as a beneficiary.

It would not affect the benefits as far as I am aware.

I don't believe that's correct - the original beneficiary has to approve the deed of variation, and so they are effectively giving away their inheritance. As I understand it, a  deed of variation only means that the money doesn't go throguh the original beneficiaries hands for the purposes of their later inheritance tax situation (as I understand it, the main reason for doing one).   The fact that the beneficiary was oroginally left the money but chose to pass it on means that organisations such as DWP and local authorities may still take it into account when considering benefit claims or applications for care home funding.

As far as I'm aware there's no way of undoing the deed now so what's done is done - it shouldn't make the person not apply for benefits if they need them.

I wouldn't recommend 'keeping schtum' - as castle96 suggests -if the benefit claim asks for the information (I'm not sure if it would or not, or how far back they'd want to go). If it remains undeclared when asked for, then  if and when it came to light it would result in , at best having to pay back at least some of the benefits, and at worst an accusation of fraud. 

It would be up to a DWP to decision maker to decide whether the deed would be classed as deprivation of benefits or not.  Their decision would depend partly on the time passed, partly, as Mosijola points out,  on the motivation behind the deed, and partly on the potential future likelihood of the original beneficiary needing to claim benefits at the time that they signed.

If it's been a while since the deed was signed and there was no indication that they would need to claim in the near future then the claim may well be approved. If not, then I believe there is a right to appeal, and if that failed then one would only hope that the eventual beneficiaries woud step up to the plate and help out financially. 

lisyloo

Isn’t it deliberate deprivation of assets that matters not just deprivation ?
and that appears not to be deliberate in this case?