Gifted money for a house on uc

Newcad

Whilst of course not all decisions are wrong, many/most are routine, and not all wrong decisions are appealed, those that are tell the story.

In the statistics published in June 2023 PIP decisions had a 64% overturn rate at tribunal and UC decisions a 53% overturn rate at tribunal.

Official Government figures:
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2023/tribunal-statistics-quarterly-january-to-march-2023#social-security-and-child-support

Of the disposals made by the SSCS tribunal, 25,000 (72%) were cleared at hearing, and of these, 62% were overturned in favour of the customer (up from 58% and down from 64% on the same period in 2022 respectively). This overturn rate varied by benefit type, with PIP at 68%, Disability Living Allowance (DLA) 59%, Employment Support Allowance (ESA) 50%, and UC 53%. The PIP, DLA, ESA and UC overturn rates mostly decreased compared with January to March 2022 (PIP down 4, DLA down 4, ESA down 12 and UC down 2 percentage points).

B&W summary:
https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/fall-in-appeal-success-rates-for-pip,-dla,-uc-and-esa

Overall, the success rate for social security appeals was 62%, down from 64% in the same period last year. No explanation for this across the board fall has been offered. However, it is worth noting that the number of ‘disposals’ – cases dealt with – increased by 60% compared to last year and it is possible that the speed with which cases are being dealt with has increased, to the detriment of claimants.

The success rates for different benefits were:

PIP 68%, down 4% on last year

DLA   59%, down 4% on last year

ESA  50%, down 12% on last year

UC 53%, down 2% on last year

In a not-everyday case such as here I would not like to rely on UC getting the decision correct first time, even with a Qistclose in place and UC notified of that.
I strongly doubt that the case manager seeing the increase in savings will consider anything else, and will just close the UC because of excess savings/capital.

Leaving the claimant without UC pending MR/appeal, which as we know can take many months. (and the property probably purchased first so UC reclaimed).

Like I say call me cynical, - but it's cynicism based of years of seeing such actions at the DWP/UC.

chante101

Many thanks for all the advice and time taken to reply to my post, I had contact with a benfits consultant who told me I should put forward to a DM my situation leaving no bits out with all evidence provided.  The specialist explained that the interpretation is up to UC as each case would be considered individually. So I personally feel like it depends on what kind of DM I will get for my case. 

poppy12345

chante101 said:

Many thanks for all the advice and time taken to reply to my post, I had contact with a benfits consultant who told me I should put forward to a DM my situation leaving no bits out with all evidence provided.  The specialist explained that the interpretation is up to UC as each case would be considered individually. So I personally feel like it depends on what kind of DM I will get for my case. 

A DM will not be able to make a decision on something before it happens. 

Yamor

chante101 said:

Many thanks for all the advice and time taken to reply to my post, I had contact with a benfits consultant who told me I should put forward to a DM my situation leaving no bits out with all evidence provided.  The specialist explained that the interpretation is up to UC as each case would be considered individually. So I personally feel like it depends on what kind of DM I will get for my case. 

Although a DM will of course make the initial decision, you have the right to request a Mandatory Reconsideration if you do not agree with the decision. This is normally looked at by a different DM. If you still disagree, you can then appeal to an independent tribunal, at which point the case would be looked at by yet another person within the DWP (the response writer), who could again change the decision. And if they still don't revise the decision, the tribunal will then decide.

It is also important to realise that the law is the law, and besides for a few specific issues, a DM does not have some sort of discretion when applying the law.
Therefore, although it might be safer and therefore perhaps advisable to report this to a DM, there is no requirement to do so. If you are sure that on the facts of your case the money is not your capital, then you do not need to report it.

Regarding the terminology of a "Quistclose trust" referred to by previous posters, it is worth realising that this is not generally something set up formally with a trust deed drawn up by a solicitor referring to such a trust.
It is more a description of a set of circumstances where the courts would agree that a trust relationship exists, and that therefore you do not have beneficial ownership of the money. (Hence the way I phrased my initial post in this thread.)