Adult son with learning disabilities, PoA in place, banking, benefits

larkim

Hi

Our adult son has now finished education and has made a successful claim for Universal Credit with a Limited Capacity for Work Related Activity judgement in his favour.  He's therefore getting the "entitlement" amount of £292 plus £390 per month, in addition to his PIP claims.

We have PoA (jointly and severally) for him for both welfare and property / finances.

He also lives at home with us, and though we are now starting work on progressing him into some sort of supported living arrangement to give him independence. 

When my wife, as Appointee, helped him with the benefit application the DWP insisted that the resulting payments were made to her and not to him, which means currently his benefits land in our joint bank account.  This confused me at the time as it was my expectation that they'd insist on either a separate bank account or that the monies were paid directly to him.

I want to avoid any fraud or impropriety in handling his monies; statement of the obvious, but just worth noting.  So bear that in mind when reading below, and call me out if you think my approach below doesn't match with that stated aim.

So I've got a couple of questions:-
- simple first question - does anyone have any experience of good banks to bank with which we could transfer his inbound UC / PIP into that would allow both of us to have a usable "app" on our phones that we could access (with PoA duties) to help manage this money for him, such as moving it into his "pocket money" / "spending" account as well as assist in keeping a good record of how much "savings" he has so that we can honestly make appropriate declarations as / when he starts to encroach on / exceed the savings limits for UC purposes etc?
- second more complex question / scenario - he is currently living at home, and clearly he incurs costs for us / himself.  As an "adult" child of working age, if he was living at home and earning (as I'd hope my other children do) I would charge them a rent, get contributions towards household bills, etc.  If he was on the start of a "normal" adult life I might charge a lower than commercial rent because I would be helping out him getting on the housing ladder, saving up for moving out etc etc.  But that same equation doesn't really work for this son - firstly, if he saves a lot then he caps his "earnings" as benefits get reduced (from a public policy perspective, I think that's right - but I'm selfishly thinking of him here), and secondly he is unlikely to need the same sort of financial reserves because in the long run he will be unlikely to purchase a house in his own right.  So he can "afford" a higher rent.  Additionally, when he does move out of home into private accommodation of some sort, that is unlikely to be a) of the same quality as his home living enviroment and b) will be charged to him at market rates (subject to him getting housing benefit, not sure how that would impact things?).  So how far is it appropriate to set the rent, and other costs?  There are 5 of us in the house, 2 children plus him, myself and my wife.  We can split the bills 5 ways, or even 3 ways between the adults.  But rent is harder as we are living mortgage free now.  Would it be proper enough to look for room rental market rates in the locality and set the amount we charge him close to that?

The bottom line is that UC gives him too much money, partly because he lives in a family set up with two of us earning reasonable salaries, and partly because the local authority also currently provides a high level of day time services for him, so he has relatively little need to spend money.  

So honestly, part of me is looking to find a way that properly justifies him retaining as little money as possible, knowing that the "bank of mum and dad" will always be willing and able to help him.  He could sign up to "waste" his money on expensive phone contracts, buying a fancy TV and sky subscription for his room, getting taxis everywhere, buying (and disposing of) lots of clothes etc.  And maybe he needs to do some of that, but as a tax-payer that doesn't feel like great use of the benefits system.  If he pays rent to us, we can choose to save more money and in the future he may well find he gets that money deployed for his benefit.  

Any help, particularly from people who find themselves in similar situations or experiences, gratefully received!

elsien

I don’t think that charging him a higher rent because he’s not going to buy his own house in the future is the right way to go.

Some people on benefits are able to get a mortgage and buy their own place – it’s unusual, but it’s not impossible.

It’s absolutely fair enough for him to pay his share of the bills, food et cetera, but charging him rent above that when you don’t have housing costs doesn’t feel like it’s acting in his best interests to me. You may feel it’s not a benefit to the taxpayer but as LPA you have to act in his best interests regardless of that. 
And you say you will always be there to help him out if needed, but none of us have a crystal ball and that may not be the case.
If he’s moving into some sort of supported setup or private rental he’s going to need to buy his own furniture. If he wants to go on holiday, he’s going to need to pay for his holiday and that of whoever accompanies him if it’s staffed,  and possibly a contribution towards them coming with him.
Plus won’t he have a financial assessment and does he not need to pay a contribution towards the cost of his services?
if he has to have less benefits because his savings have reached a certain amount, that’s normal life really isn’t it and that’s how works for most people on means tested benefits. 

What are his views on any surplus?  Although he lacks capacity around  his finances, maybe things he wants that he has an opinion about. 

Savvy_Sue

There was a thread not so long ago on a very similar theme. I cannot remember who posted it or who might have contributed to it (might have done myself!) but can anyone else find it? 

I am in agreement with elsien. A friend's child is in supported accommodation, and the residents pay for all the furniture and white goods between them. 

But I am equally surprised that your wife wasn't expected to open a separate appointee account! 

Newly_retired

You might get answers from people with more experience of your situation, or of the benefits system, if you post on the Benefits Board.
Meanwhile I would say you are perfectly entitled to charge “ rent” at the same rate as you might charge a ( non- family) lodger, and also a share of the expenses, food, heat, internet etc, and that could be fixed at a third of the household costs, given that there are three adults in the home. This would prepare your son for costs in a future independent life.

larkim

Thanks for the insightful thoughts, and the observations about savings / future purchases / rent are particularly apposite.  I suppose my concern is that if, say, he lives at home for a further 3 years bringing in £600 a month in UC and another nearly £400 in PIP (exclude his Motability car), he will very rapidly accrue £16,000 in savings, even with well structured outgoings.  And at that point his ability to save further is stopped. 

Maybe £16000 is more than enough appropriately furnish his future accommodation (it probably is in all reality), and it will also of course be appropriate for him to spend money on himself in terms of holidays / leisure and sometimes have to pay more for that (though equally it annoys me a little that if we are trying to spend his benefits, when he gets access to cheap tickets or free entry to places that ignores the fact that he actually has disposable income!)

Yep, modelling rent on a non-family lodger basis sounds ethically and practically right to me.  Finding out what that sort of rate ought to be is a tricky one though!

In terms of future financial assessments, absolutely yes he will have to contribute (and rightly so), so his current high level of income will be sigificantly reduced when he is making his means tested contributions to the support etc that he gets.  The incentive (when viewed from an entirely ££ perspective) would be for him to have as little of his own money as possible so that means testing means he isn't paying substantial amounts to his services, particularly in the context of the rest of his family being more than able and willing to fund the nice things in life for him; we will continue to do that because he's our son and have made sensible arrangements in our Wills already to maximise that position for him.

And the point about him being able to take out a mortgage and own his own house - again, no disagreement that this might be the right way forward for him, but as his income will get capped once his savings exceed £16000 means he'll struggle to find any decent amount of deposit to get on that housing ladder if that seems to be the right way to go for him.

In terms of his views of money and surplus, the reality is that he has very limited concept of the real value of money, and on any given day if he had easy access to buying himself a new iPhone he'd do that at the drop of a hat.  We're all entitled to make daft financial decisions, so that's not necessarily an issue.  But at the same time we try to help him make "sensible" decisions, and despite much trying we do struggle to get him to grasp some of the simple concepts of money.  We perhaps should allow him to make more mistakes, but that's difficult.

No suggestions from anyone about banks that are good to use though?

Savvy_Sue

for banks, I'd always go for one which let you do internet banking under PofA, and that may limit your choice ... 

You do know that his PIP will not be capped because of savings? That is not income assessed. 

One thought which might not have occurred to you is that a funeral plan would not usually be seen as Deprivation of Assets, and I'm not sure whether paying into a pension would be acceptable. I'd think taking advice from any support organisations would be useful, I believe, and if there's nothing 'obvious' then https://www.scope.org.uk/ seems to have good general advice. 

elsien

I’m still not sure why you want to reduce the amount of means testing though, given that that money goes towards the services that he gets? 

I work with a number of people with learning disabilities in supported living - some of them like spending on a day to day basis and will never have much in the way of savings although the appointee does ensure that there is an emergency fund, holiday fund et cetera.

 Some people do hit that 16 K limit, but then it’s just a question of the benefits going on hold for a bit until the money is gone back below. It’s not a big deal, and I would be uncomfortable with the idea of someone charging them, or although I can see where your reasoning is coming from. 

To me, it just doesn’t sit right because there’s no guarantees that families will spend the accrued money on people in the future.

 (Not casting any aspersions on you at all, just that life doesn’t always go as planned - illness, redundancy, divorce, family fallout etc.) 

Savvy_Sue

Savvy_Sue said:

There was a thread not so long ago on a very similar theme. I cannot remember who posted it or who might have contributed to it (might have done myself!) but can anyone else find it? 

Actually I may have found the thread I was thinking of, on the Disability Moneysaving Board, and it may not be relevant at all, but I post it here for completeness. 

 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6478262/disabled-adults-contribution-to-la-funding

larkim

Thanks again all.  And @elsien makes a sound point about families who make decisions today and forget about them tomorrow when looking after their relatives money.  An easy trap for people to fall into.

We've already established, on a Mencap-recommended solicitor's advice, a discretionary trust fund which can be a potential source of fallback financial help for him (and others in the family) into the future, so we've got a good way of protecting the money, but of course as a discretionary trust there is no guarantee that the money will make its way to him in the future - if it was guaranteed then it would be his savings, and then would impact  his means tested benefits.

I suppose part of me is just moaning about the fact that the system doesn't well cater for young adults living at home in moderately well off circumstances, and effectively gives him too much in the way of benefits as his outgoings whilst he lives with us are tiny.  They won't be in the future of course when he does live independently.

So at the moment if I was 100% on the side of a young man with money coming in, I'd be spend-spend-spend (new iphone, expensive sky subscription, expensive clothes, regularly eating out, buying presents for his friends, getting Uber everywhere he wants to go) yet that doesn't feel right in the context of someone who won't always be able to live like that.  He could just save-save-save and rapidly hit the savings threshold, but my reading of the savings is that once you've got them it is harder to spend as the diminution of assets stuff starts to become more important.  

elsien

But again, that’s pretty normal though.
when I moved back home as an adult I did pay rent, but it wasn’t a massive amount and I had a great time with holidays and travelling the world. Then I bought a house. I needed furniture and my budget had to change due to the different priorities.

The difference with your son, I guess, is how much he understands that if he does spend money now it may well have to change in the future and won’t always be like that. But life is for living so why not enjoy it while he can? 

Although I probably quibble at things like uber everywhere if that does end up, deskilling him and reducing his independence. 

It’s a balance isn’t it, and you’ve got his best interests at heart in weighing up those pros and cons.