When do gambling winnings become capital for UC?

Newcad

NedS said:

I wonder how they will treat my electricity account being £600 in credit due to solar export built up over the summer to pay for my electricity in winter.

That is a very interesting question that I've added it to my list of things to look into when I'm on a computer rather than on my phone in the pub with a few pints onboard.

With a different hat on I'm in an invited/appointed  "expert volunteer" on an energy company forum.

That particular energy company has just brought out a policy of getting everyone who pays by Direct Debit to be at least one month in credit on 31st March each year. (So still in credit AFTER the heavy winter use).

As you can imagine it is not a popular policy with customers.

I'm fairly certain that the possible impact that policy might have on benefits (admitedly only in a few cases, but still possible) has not been considered at all.

I anticipate having some fun "backstage" on that forum where we appointed "forum volunteers" are listened to about such matters (I'm thinking bringing up EA10, etc).

PS, I hope you are getting a decent FIT or SEG rate NedS 

born_again

NedS said:

Northern_Wanderer said:

Newcad said:

Accounts such as bookmaker accounts, or PayPal or Amazon, or ...... are stll your accounts with your capital in them.

If you are claiming benefits then you should declare to the DWP  any balance in such accounts.

Yes, but usually people convince themselves that money hidden in places UC does not know about are not included in their capital.

This is where the new digital legislation will help, as all of these types of account will be required to share data with DWP and will raise AI red flags (for Targeted Case Reviews) for claimants with more than £6,000 in undeclared capital.

I wonder how they will treat my electricity account being £600 in credit due to solar export built up over the summer to pay for my electricity in winter.

Would be a interesting given what Ofgem expects when paying via a monthly DD, that the energy providers to ensure that people do pay enough a month to cover their average yearly cost. 
Like you I have a healthy balance. 

Spoonie_Turtle

I'm busy this weekend then will be recovering so I can't actually look into it, but I would suspect it's not viewed as capital because it's not an account with money that can be used for just anything at any time as one desires.  Which a PayPal account is.  In practice we can have refunds from credit in our energy accounts, but it is at the discretion of the energy company as the purpose of the money is ostensibly to pay for energy.  Like how if you pay extra rent and are in credit, most of the time the landlord (usually council/housing association) won't give you a refund unless they are uncomfortable with how much extra is on the account.

I see how it could be a grey area though because of the realities of being able to 'withdraw' money from credit on an energy account. 

Altior

I know very little about benefits, but I do know a lot about betting!

How would it be interpreted if someone in receipt of means tested benefits placed a bet on a future event?

Just hypothetically, for an example, they had a £0 balance, deposited £100 and put it on Labour to win the next UK general election.

Their cash balance/wallet in the betting account is, once again, back to £0. But there is a betting exposure of £100, which likely won't be settled until 2029.

In a nutshell, does betting exposure still count as capital, or just the available cash/wallet? There's obviously no way for anyone looking into the affairs to know that exposure exists anyway, unless they accessed the account and knew their way around the site. So the question is of a hypothetical nature, though a curious one for me.

HillStreetBlues

Yamor said:

Of course, if the gambling is carried out professionally, in an organised manner, and with a view to making a profit, then it may well be treated as self-employed earnings, and then will be income in the first instance.

Been wondering with this issue. With tax it wouldn't be income as gambling isn't classed as a trade (so no income tax payable), does UC treat it differently?

huckster

Agree, UC unlikely to view gambling as a trade, so would therefore not treat as self employed.

Grumpy_chap

Newcad said:

That particular energy company has just brought out a policy of getting everyone who pays by Direct Debit to be at least one month in credit on 31st March each year. (So still in credit AFTER the heavy winter use).

I'm fairly certain that the possible impact that policy might have on benefits (admitedly only in a few cases, but still possible) has not been considered at all.

I suspect that would have zero impact on benefits.

I can understand the case where an individual choses to overpay and hold a balance on their energy supplier account out of choice.  This might be seen as DoC in some cases.

However, if the supplier requires that the accounts are in a positive balance, that is not the individual's choice but merely the correct servicing of the account.  That seems less likely to be seen as DoC.

The above is purely my lay-person comment.  I cannot back up my thoughts my reference to rules / legislation.  My thoughts may be entirely incorrect.  If so, someone will likely advise the reasons why my thoughts are not reflected by the specific rules appertaining to the scenario.

Spoonie_Turtle

Grumpy_chap said:

Newcad said:

That particular energy company has just brought out a policy of getting everyone who pays by Direct Debit to be at least one month in credit on 31st March each year. (So still in credit AFTER the heavy winter use).

I'm fairly certain that the possible impact that policy might have on benefits (admitedly only in a few cases, but still possible) has not been considered at all.

I suspect that would have zero impact on benefits.

I can understand the case where an individual choses to overpay and hold a balance on their energy supplier account out of choice.  This might be seen as DoC in some cases.

However, if the supplier requires that the accounts are in a positive balance, that is not the individual's choice but merely the correct servicing of the account.  That seems less likely to be seen as DoC.

The above is purely my lay-person comment.  I cannot back up my thoughts my reference to rules / legislation.  My thoughts may be entirely incorrect.  If so, someone will likely advise the reasons why my thoughts are not reflected by the specific rules appertaining to the scenario.

Yes I was thinking about this - it may not be a grey area; if it's not capital then overpaying 'unreasonable' sums without any bill or other requirement or logical reason to do so could be treated as DoC where applicable.  (And obviously passively accumulating credit, rather than paying in to the account, is different as well.)

But these are also lay-person thoughts not backed up by anything because as before, I can't go looking for the time being.

Newcad

I have to admit that I'm not sure about credit in utility/rent/etc. accounts either, I haven't had the time to look into it yet.

But it did come up somewhere on a thread about migration from Tax Credits to UC and the 12 month capital disregard.

Ie. If someone with the disregard 'loaded up' their utility (and rent if applicable) accounts with credit then would that be DoC?

The concensus as I remember was that it would be a deliberate act to maintain UC in payment after it would otherwise had ended- and so would be DoC.

However as a general situation then it may be similar to the rule for 'Unearned income' that says if it isn't on a particular list then it isn't considered at all.

I'll get round to looking at it sometime.

huckster

Utility companies often require their customers to run their accounts with a certain amount of credit.

I don't think UC guidance covers this.  If someone was regularly overpaying say their gas/electricity bill each month, UC when reviewing the Bank statements would see high outgoings, but are unlikely to challenge this by asking for Energy statements.

Does this debate indicate that some benefit claimants are receiving too much in benefits ?