Universal Credit - Deprevation of Capital

Spoonie_Turtle

Given all of the above, I still think it could be prudent just to keep receipts so you can prove if you're asked.  What they can legally do if neither party can prove either way, maybe not much when it comes down to it - but in the course of establishing that, they can choose to give you problems that you then have to fight, and it just seems silly to run a risk that can be so easily and simply eliminated by keeping receipts.  Not necessary for every penny of course, and not everywhere offers receipts for smaller purchases, but most places do especially for larger purchases.

However, *if this is how you've spent your money for years already whilst you were on previous means-tested benefits* (including ESA IIRC?), this might all be irrelevant because if it didn't raise eyebrows then, is there any real reason it should now?

born_again

atlantis187 said:

If it was ever queried and we didn't have any receipts to show what can they LEGALLY do about this? as we've not actually broken any rules.

On the flip side, you can not prove that you did not.
Proof will be king from your side.

Doubt on theirs would be enough to launch a fraud investigation against you claim.

Grumpy_chap

I think the OP has quite an edge case that is being considered here. 
£3K - £4K of UC received each month all drawn as cash and spent in the month on boiler repairs, car mechanics and other trades where the tradespeople favour cash payment.
One assumes the OP does not spend that whole amount on tradespeople every month.

I think, in more regular day-to-day spending, many people would struggle to make £1k per month as cash payments.  Many businesses simply do not want cash any longer.  Even small businesses - for example our local fish & chip takeaway prefers card payment since the last bank in the High Street closed.

Outside of the exceptional spend on tradespeople, the OP has not answered the question about whether the whole £3k4 - £4k of cash every month is spent or kept in the house.  If it is spent, it is never capital and seems contrary to the whole premise of the opening post and thread title.

As for the basic question, the OP has been given the answer many times that they can draw as much of their income they wish as cash and spend it however they wish and if that all happens in the single assessment period the money is never capital.  One cannot deprive oneself of capital that never existed.

However, the OP still pushes for more clarity and certainty about not being allowed to spend the money however they wish.

Is there more to this that the OP is not sharing?

poppy12345

According to the OP previous threads they already have capital of more than £16,000 because they own a property they don't live in which is disregarded for 12 months due to migrating from Tax credits. 

Muttleythefrog

Grumpy_chap said:

Is there more to this that the OP is not sharing?

Past posting is always good for research and the answer to your question is probably not really. I think it's obvious what is happening and I trust the OP realises people are giving advice at face value... as Spoonie did almost a year ago to pretty much the same question when the op wanted their balance to appear below £6k and they wanted to take cash out to achieve it. Years ago they were looking to move monies to childrens' savings to avoid their balance going over £6k. The poster is looking for emotional reassurance they won't be caught out.. and that they can trade spending and withdrawing interchangeably in mind to validate what they do... they already know the facts and benefit rules and the claims of that level of consistent cash spending and the reason are completely unbelievable as the poster essentially admits by omission (anyone who is regularly spending thousands in cash a month will have an abundance of high cost spending in mind and they do not.. or at least not that they're prepared to state). I may be wrong but my background and skills would suggest not likely..lol. We're not here to judge... but I suspect the Op is sort of testing the waters on that to establish their risk of fraud detection. If that is the case - investigation is unlikely but their behaviour of cash withdrawals is likely going to raise lots of suspicion and questions if scrutiny ever was placed on their accounts and capital... and that they come across as deceptive and not believable to me (and clearly same to others). Even the thread title is at odds with what they say they're doing and thinking... as is their claim of moneysaving in this way and past efforts of same. I presume they're moving into (or already have) the owned home that was being rented out as was their intention when tenants left... as obviously that should typically become capital once transitional protection ends if they do not and in my last post I pointed them to this as fiddling their monies is pointless if a residential property is about to become significant considered capital.

atlantis187

born_again said:

atlantis187 said:

If it was ever queried and we didn't have any receipts to show what can they LEGALLY do about this? as we've not actually broken any rules.

On the flip side, you can not prove that you did not.
Proof will be king from your side.

Doubt on theirs would be enough to launch a fraud investigation against you claim.

and what will the fraud investigation show? That we are spending our money in the way we are allowed to.

atlantis187

We have migrated onto UC from TC
UC have already told us that the second property is excluded for the first 12 months. (well its not a second property its our only property in our name (we currently live with family we are hoping to move into after some major work is done to it).
We do not have 16k cash our bank balance is now under 6k after some major spends. This takes us over the 6k after these UC payments and once we have spend the 3/4k of this the money goes below 6k again. 

Muttleythefrog

atlantis187 said:

born_again said:

atlantis187 said:

If it was ever queried and we didn't have any receipts to show what can they LEGALLY do about this? as we've not actually broken any rules.

On the flip side, you can not prove that you did not.
Proof will be king from your side.

Doubt on theirs would be enough to launch a fraud investigation against you claim.

and what will the fraud investigation show? That we are spending our money in the way we are allowed to.

You can spend money as you see fit within the law in the format of your desire. That's not the issue - the issue is one of whether you're actually spending all this cash. If you've got receipts showing all the cash spending yes it would show you are not holding it/some as capital at the end of assessment period... if you've not then I can't see how you or they could conventionally evidence that you have spent it and thus it/some does not exist for capital calculation.

Your concern (such as "If it was ever queried and we didn't have any receipts to show what can they LEGALLY do about this?") over receipts is because you don't have them covering your claimed cash spending otherwise why enduring anxiety and antagonism towards 'them'... right? 

Tucosalamanca

I'm not sure if this is even an issue.

I can think of a handful of pubs where the regular patrons (claiming UC) spend huge amounts on alcohol, tobacco, pool/fruit machines, drugs and take-away/delivery food. I'm sure it's the same across the country.

One hundred pounds a day, three thousand a month, it seems an entirely plausible spend.
There must be tens of thousands leading similar lifestyles.

I'm not suggesting that this is typical of UC claimants but it's very apparent that it does happen, and probably in numbers great enough that it would be near on impossible for DWP to investigate or bring to account.

I don't think OP has much to worry about if they have a few quid in their wallet...

Murphybear

Muttleythefrog said:

atlantis187 said:

So we are not really allowed to spend the money how we wish then without having to explain about every penny and required to show receipts for EVERYTHING even though we are still below the allowed 6K threshold. 

Why do the DWP even have a 6K limit then why not just tell people on means tested benefits to upload receipts for EVERY penny spent.

Calm down...lol. As explained.. you can spend your money any way you legally desire - we have been absolutely clear about that. We are just pointing out that withdrawing and spending large amounts of cash may raise eyebrows and be difficult to explain or evidence if ever queried. We do not know if you would ever be queried or have statements looked at in some review. Also pointing out if tradespersons and others ask for cash payment over any other for cheaper deals it could well be because they want to evade tax and keep the transaction 'off the books' - i.e. be careful if ever trying to justify/explain cash spending if it involves what could be seen as dodgy.

The important fact is that cash still counts as capital - so it remains capital until spent. The DWP may be suspicious that large amounts of regular cash withdrawals are to hide capital but they'll struggle to ever prove it whether true or not. Cash is typically more difficult to trace and show activity regarding from both the perspective of owner and authorities. With that in mind it is suggested you may want to add traceability yourself in the form of receipts but at that level of cash spending it may prove messy and it may turn out fruitless an exercise.

Being a bit kinder it is usually cheaper for a small business to deal in cash.  Using one of the machines that takes plastic can be expensive to rent or buy and the charges for using them is high.  We found this out when we ran our own business