Advice on UC and Inheritance.

poppy12345

marcia_ said:

 Depending on the reason for the pay out you could set up a person injury trust. 

The title of the thread says it's an inheritance. Therefore a Personal Injury Trust wouldn't apply here. 

marcia_

poppy12345 said:

marcia_ said:

 Depending on the reason for the pay out you could set up a person injury trust. 

The title of the thread says it's an inheritance. Therefore a Personal Injury Trust wouldn't apply here. 

Missed that, up at 4am 

andrewmp

mrmond_uk said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Why can't you treat yourself to a holiday or anything new?

We've been doing a lot of reading since finding out this money is coming. Everything we've read has suggested anything beyond living expenses and priority debts would be deliberately reducing our income. I've been putting a little aside towards a new laptop for the last year to replace the one I use, keyboard not working properly, can't be upgraded when Win 10 support ends, but afaik that would be viewed as luxury goods and not ok.
So many posts in forums suggest DWP know how much we need to live on and how long it should last. If I keep a record of what we use the money on and one day re-apply for UC, I'm worried about being refused for wasting money.

You'll get people who think they know what they're talking about mentioning priority debts etc. Ignore them. Their misguided advice is based on caselaw relating to most legacy benefits that didn't state that repaying debts is not considered deprivation of capital. Because it wasn't stated then it became about what was reasonable, ie priority debt etc etc.

Sometimes when you point out the truth to these people, they'll double down with things like there is no case law etc. I think they're probably misinformed DWP staff who can't get their heads around the fact the UC regulations are different.

If you have a mortgage, just pay it off with your inheritance.

HillStreetBlues

andrewmp said:

mrmond_uk said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Why can't you treat yourself to a holiday or anything new?

We've been doing a lot of reading since finding out this money is coming. Everything we've read has suggested anything beyond living expenses and priority debts would be deliberately reducing our income. I've been putting a little aside towards a new laptop for the last year to replace the one I use, keyboard not working properly, can't be upgraded when Win 10 support ends, but afaik that would be viewed as luxury goods and not ok.
So many posts in forums suggest DWP know how much we need to live on and how long it should last. If I keep a record of what we use the money on and one day re-apply for UC, I'm worried about being refused for wasting money.

You'll get people who think they know what they're talking about mentioning priority debts etc. Ignore them. Their misguided advice is based on caselaw relating to most legacy benefits that didn't state that repaying debts is not considered deprivation of capital. Because it wasn't stated then it became about what was reasonable, ie priority debt etc etc.

Sometimes when you point out the truth to these people, they'll double down with things like there is no case law etc. I think they're probably misinformed DWP staff who can't get their heads around the fact the UC regulations are different.

If you have a mortgage, just pay it off with your inheritance.

I doubt many of them would even know about case law. They will be people who think people on benefits should only ever have the very basic of living standards and portray their own narrow minded view as fact.

mrmond_uk

I feel a little better reading the comments and advice given here. Could someone explain more what is meant about UC regulations being different?

Spoonie_Turtle

mrmond_uk said:

I feel a little better reading the comments and advice given here. Could someone explain more what is meant about UC regulations being different?

For legacy benefits, only repaying debts when due was acceptable. 

For Universal Credit, the law explicitly states that paying off debt is never treated as Deprivation of Capital.

"(2) A person is not to be treated as depriving themselves of capital if the person disposes of it for the purposes of—

(a)reducing or paying a debt owed by the person; or

(b)purchasing goods or services if the expenditure was reasonable in the circumstances of the person's case"

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/376/regulation/50

Muttleythefrog

mrmond_uk said:

I feel a little better reading the comments and advice given here. Could someone explain more what is meant about UC regulations being different?

As above.... debt repayment never considered deprivation of capital whereas under old benefits it could be. Unfortunately virtually all the case law out there on the subject relates to those old benefits (as you would expect given UC has not been around so long) so not particularly useful for reference in UC cases. 

andrewmp

Muttleythefrog said:

mrmond_uk said:

I feel a little better reading the comments and advice given here. Could someone explain more what is meant about UC regulations being different?

As above.... debt repayment never considered deprivation of capital whereas under old benefits it could be. Unfortunately virtually all the case law out there on the subject relates to those old benefits (as you would expect given UC has not been around so long) so not particularly useful for reference in UC cases. 

Yep. Pension Credit has/had similar rules to UC regarding capital and that's been around a lot longer.

The but but case law 'experts' always fail to consider that when they try scare tactics such as 'it just hasn't been tested yet'.

Northern_Wanderer

Muttleythefrog said:

mrmond_uk said:

I feel a little better reading the comments and advice given here. Could someone explain more what is meant about UC regulations being different?

As above.... debt repayment never considered deprivation of capital whereas under old benefits it could be. Unfortunately virtually all the case law out there on the subject relates to those old benefits (as you would expect given UC has not been around so long) so not particularly useful for reference in UC cases. 

UC has been around since 2013, although I appreciate there are still people to migrate over from legacy benefits and less case law on UC...

Spoonie_Turtle

Does there even need to be case law for this?  I am by no means a lawyer but seems perfectly clear.

[Case law around proving a debt is/was a debt, yes that I could understand potentially arising.  But that's not what's being talked about.]