Deprivation of capital

calcotti

NedS said:

calcotti said:

I’ve always found it difficult to see how a deprivation of capital decision can logically be applied, even if a luxury item is purchased, if the money for that purchase is funded by withdrawing money from a pension fund which is otherwise disregarded given that the withdrawal of the funds indicates that there isn’t an intention to spend in order to increase or retain benefit entitlement.

Maybe, but this is DWP you are dealing with, and I suspect they would argue that the two are not related.

I’m wasn’t saying they wouldn’t, just that in my opinion logic says they shouldn’t! However I recognise the logic of your argument may that which prevails,

NedS said:?.so the claimant can simply run up a debt (maybe on a credit card) purchasing said luxury items and withdraw a lump sum from their pension and use it to repay the debt (as how they incurred the debt is not relevant).

That’s very devious and has never occurred to me but the logic is sound.

Grumpy_chap

NPJ said:

We're getting married in May and have paid for a large chunk of wedding expenses, but still have some expenses such as decoration of the reception venue (chair and table coverings etc), wine for the toast, flowers, alterations to bridesmaid dresses and a little still to pay off the balance for our honeymoon.  I'm considering taking one of my pension pots as a lump sum. This will be £9,686 and after tax will take our savings above £6,000 but not over £16,000. 

Sorry to hear about your health issues and I hope you are recovering.  Congratulations on the forthcoming nuptials.

You have not mentioned your age, but is drawing from your future income stream (and suffering taxation on that) prudent to fund the expenses of one special day?

NPJ

NedS said:

If I were a DM considering this case, I would want to know when you booked these events (the wedding and the holiday), specifically if you booked them before you were claiming UC (or reasonably knew you would need to claim benefits), how you intended to pay for them and are the costs reasonable.

Where expensive events are booked before a claim for means-tested benefits were made (or where known to be needed), there can be no indication that there was a deliberate intention to reduce capital for the purposes of claiming (more) means-tested benefits.

If they were booked after claiming means-tested benefits, then the costs must be reasonable. It is perfectly reasonable to want to get married and to save for such an event, so it then comes down to the DM's expectation of what is reasonable to spend on a wedding balanced with the need to support yourselves financially. Weddings can undoubtedly be a very expensive business, but equally you can get married in a registry office for very little, so I would not like to judge what may be considered reasonable.

The wedding was booked with the vicar on May 31st, we actually decided that we would wed this year a fortnight before that (the 15th anniversary of our engagement).  As mentioned in my original post, I was already on benefits at the time having spent most of April in hospital.  We paid for the photographs, the wedding car, the hotel for the wedding night, half the cost of the (short), honeymoon, the wedding and bridesmaid dresses, my suit, the invitations, the reception and the 2022 cost for the church.  There will be a little more to pay for the church depending on what the 2023 increase is, the vicar estimated that it would be approx £30, though we expect it to be a little more due the cost of living problem.  There will be more to be paid for alterations to the bridesmaid dresses and as I mentioned in the original post, room decoration for the reception including hiring tables due to the venue's own tables being too small.  We've tried to cap the guest list to 80 people, though we have ended up inviting 96 ( can't invite this person and not that one etc).  Hoping that a few can't make it to cut it back down to 80.  Incidentally, we have cut some of the cost by choosing a weekday to get married as it's cheaper than a weekend and chosen 4pm enabling us to have the reception running through to 11pm negating the need for a separate night time disco.  Yes we could have married in a registry office, but after waiting all this time

As for the holiday, we always tend to book early for the following year, that's why we booked and paid the deposit in September.  We do prefer to be able to pay small amounts throughout the year to reduce the the balance.  But unfortunately, we aren't allowed to through the UK-caravans-for-hire website, so we have to pay the remainder between the 26th May and 9th June.  

NPJ

Grumpy_chap said:

NPJ said:

We're getting married in May and have paid for a large chunk of wedding expenses, but still have some expenses such as decoration of the reception venue (chair and table coverings etc), wine for the toast, flowers, alterations to bridesmaid dresses and a little still to pay off the balance for our honeymoon.  I'm considering taking one of my pension pots as a lump sum. This will be £9,686 and after tax will take our savings above £6,000 but not over £16,000. 

Sorry to hear about your health issues and I hope you are recovering.  Congratulations on the forthcoming nuptials.

You have not mentioned your age, but is drawing from your future income stream (and suffering taxation on that) prudent to fund the expenses of one special day?

Thank you and yes I am recovering.  

I spent my 60th birthday in hospital last April.  I do have other pension pots that I will leave untouched until I reach retirement age. Also, my fiance is 15 years younger than me and is planning on returning to her career as a carer when our daughter finishes her education in three years time (she's special needs and a bus picks her up to take her to school and the return journey each day so someone needs to be at home for that).   

NPJ

Not that much of a problem after all.  I've been told that the document I received (in October), informing me that the value of that particular pension pot was £9,686 was incorrect and the value is actually £2,000+.  It's apparently down to human error.

HillStreetBlues

NPJ said:

Not that much of a problem after all.  I've been told that the document I received (in October), informing me that the value of that particular pension pot was £9,686 was incorrect and the value is actually £2,000+.  It's apparently down to human error.

Have you checked to see if the amended figure is correct?

Alice_Holt

NPJ said:

Not that much of a problem after all.  I've been told that the document I received (in October), informing me that the value of that particular pension pot was £9,686 was incorrect and the value is actually £2,000+.  It's apparently down to human error.

      I'd be checking that against previous pension statements, and making a formal complaint. 
      I'd also want a Subject Access Request on all my data / contributions / valuations. 
     
       Some people may have made plans / commitments around the advised £9.7k number.

      I'd want to be sure that the c.75% "human error" (i.e admin chaos) isn't the £2k valuation.

      Which company is it?  A number of insurance / pension companies seem to have very poor customer service (BBC Radio 4 Moneybox recently featured Scottish Widows as a particularly bad example).