What's the diffidence between collecting gold and investment gold and the impact on benefits?

born_again

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Your deputy needs to know about the coins, if they don't already, then it's up to them to find out whether it needs to be declared because they're the one responsible for your claim.

Given this previous post.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6575973/i-have-a-deputyship-at-social-services-im-getting-a-mobility-car-soon-who-signs-the-forms

& I don't have capacity with my money?

I would expect them to know, as they must be approving the spend.

TimeLord1

HillStreetBlues said:

TimeLord1 said:

I think people seem to pigeon hole items like this as rings, chains, bracelets etc. which if you was in debt would be sold but personal possessions until it's sold. But coins and bars is classed as share investment.

When the laws were written there was no distinction between rings, chains coins or even bars, they are all personal possession.  Gold isn't legally a "share" so can't be classed as such.
Is it a way of circumventing the capital rules, it would seem so but unless they update the rules or there is Case Law to state they are capital,  possessions they remain.

By share I meant something that you can invest into on the stock market or visually monitor current values.

I was reading this thread but the end of the day it would be sticking within the rules. 

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6272638/are-royal-mint-gold-collectors-coins-classed-as-savings

kaMelo

I think we all know what is going on but unless there are more specific rules put in place I agree with @HillStreetBlues interpretation.

I remember reading about a tribunal ruling over a static caravan purchase where the lower tier found it to be capital and/or depivation (I can't remember exactly) but the upper tier dismissed the ruling and allowed the appeal. The rules referred to in the case were part of the supplementary benefit rules which is when the capital rules were first introduced.

Make no mistake as to why the caravan was purchased but although it was an investment it was also something they could derive pleasure from, so a personal possession and disregarded from capital.

sheramber

kaMelo said:

I think we all know what is going on but unless there are more specific rules put in place I agree with @HillStreetBlues interpretation.

I remember reading about a tribunal ruling over a static caravan purchase where the lower tier found it to be capital and/or depivation (I can't remember exactly) but the upper tier dismissed the ruling and allowed the appeal. The rules referred to in the case were part of the supplementary benefit rules which is when the capital rules were first introduced.

Make no mistake as to why the caravan was purchased but although it was an investment it was also something they could derive pleasure from, so a personal possession and disregarded from capital.

You would derive value from a Ferrari but I think the purchase of one would be considered deprivation of capital , if on meqns tested benfits.

Grumpy_chap

kaMelo said:

Make no mistake as to why the caravan was purchased but although it was an investment it was also something they could derive pleasure from, so a personal possession and disregarded from capital.

A caravan will usually depreciate in value, so not an investment.
I am also unclear what pleasure an individual derives from a handful of coins.

TELLIT01

I presume the OP collects one in each place they visit on their multiple holidays of less than 28 days each year.  On that basis could they claim they are a collection of souvenirs?

HillStreetBlues

kaMelo said:

I think we all know what is going on but unless there are more specific rules put in place I agree with @HillStreetBlues interpretation.

I remember reading about a tribunal ruling over a static caravan purchase where the lower tier found it to be capital and/or depivation (I can't remember exactly) but the upper tier dismissed the ruling and allowed the appeal. The rules referred to in the case were part of the supplementary benefit rules which is when the capital rules were first introduced.

Make no mistake as to why the caravan was purchased but although it was an investment it was also something they could derive pleasure from, so a personal possession and disregarded from capital.

That is correct, the ruling on that case is what I refereed up thread  R(H)7/08 the Tribunal (lower) ruled the caravan was capital but appealed to the Social Security Commissioner (different system then) who allowed the appeal and ruled the caravan was not capital so making it Case Law.

HillStreetBlues

sheramber said:

kaMelo said:

I think we all know what is going on but unless there are more specific rules put in place I agree with @HillStreetBlues interpretation.

I remember reading about a tribunal ruling over a static caravan purchase where the lower tier found it to be capital and/or depivation (I can't remember exactly) but the upper tier dismissed the ruling and allowed the appeal. The rules referred to in the case were part of the supplementary benefit rules which is when the capital rules were first introduced.

Make no mistake as to why the caravan was purchased but although it was an investment it was also something they could derive pleasure from, so a personal possession and disregarded from capital.

You would derive value from a Ferrari but I think the purchase of one would be considered deprivation of capital , if on meqns tested benfits.

It all depends on the how much capital a person has.
If you buy gold coins and your capital is always under £6k then there is no DoC and the coins aren't considered capital.
If a person had £60k and then bought the coins so capital would then under £6k  then coins are still not capital  but  buying them would almost certain be DoC.

HillStreetBlues

Grumpy_chap said:

kaMelo said:

Make no mistake as to why the caravan was purchased but although it was an investment it was also something they could derive pleasure from, so a personal possession and disregarded from capital.

A caravan will usually depreciate in value, so not an investment.
I am also unclear what pleasure an individual derives from a handful of coins.

It doesn't matter if it's an investment or not.
As the Judge explained in the Case Law I've referred to previously,
The rule was it wasn't disregarded if it was "are in the nature of an investment"
When the 1988 reforms where made they dropped the "are in the nature of an investment"  the thought being the any one on income related benefits wouldn't have such investments.
By dropping that clause, it doesn't matter if it bought as an investment as there is now no rules against it.

Grumpy_chap

There must be some guidance or case law around this and the deprivation of capital.

I am not sure the caravan is a good example to compare with the OP's coin collection - because caravans typically depreciate in value.

I am not sure the sports car is a good example to compare with the OP's coin collection - because the sports car probably requires far more than £6k or £16k to acquire in the first place.

The OP seems to be suggesting that if the capital rises to, say £5.5k and the expectation is that the capital will rise to over £6k in the following AP, then the option might be there to buy a gold coin at value of £2k, thus keeping well below the £6k threshold.

The suggestion is that the gold coin is now a "personal possession" and not savings.  

If an individual with the same circumstances (£5.5k and expecting to breach £6k) needed a new watch, then a Timex would be very reasonable.  A Rolex would possibly be deprivation of capital.  Exactly that was discussed here:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6240337/what-can-benefit-savings-be-spent-on/p1

The Rolex would also now be "personal possession".

Further, is the gold coin deemed to be cash?  Cash would be capital.