Deprivation of assets prior to claiming UC.

Rubyroobs

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Do you know what the timeline was between selling and giving the money away?

Did they have any idea their job might be under threat at the time?  Obviously I'm not a DM but I can't help thinking that may be key.  If they had no idea that they might have to claim benefits in the short or medium term then the DWP would be hard pressed to argue it was with the intention of maximising benefit entitlement.  Whereas if they did know, or their health had started to decline (as you mention ESA) that would definitely complicate things.

IIRC the burden of proof is supposed to be on DWP to prove intentional DoC and ultimately only the claimant knows the truth, whether they had any inkling of needing to claim future benefits, but in reality depending on the facts of the case ('the optics') it could be hard to prove if they didn't.

One of the couple was coming up to  retirement age so would have known earnings would be stopping. Sorry I'm reluctant to give too much information, I was just wanting others experience of how far they can go back and whether they ever do . I know they do routine reviews but it doesn't involve looking at the situation before claiming.

elsien

I did a quick Google and there was a thread where the DWP had asked for three years worth of bank statements. It was unclear from the thread what had triggered that. 

Newcad

I too was under the impression from the original post that this was a new UC claim and not one that was made around 18 months ago.

Given that it is an existing, established UC account then I also ask - What has prompted this query to be raised now?

Have the DWP queried something?
Or has somebody just learned of DoC and is now worrying unnecessarily?

To add a note of reality here, (and for all discussion of DoC) -
"Deprivation of Capital" is discussed a lot on fora such as this and on Social Media, mainly because there are no hard rules and each potential case is unique and subjective.
It's that uniqueness and subjectivity that makes it an interesting (fascinating? worrying?) topic for many.

Actual cases of someone being found to have committed  DoC  are very rare though, - so rare that it isn't even mentioned in the DWP's 'Fraud and Error' statistics.

I'd suggest that something that is so rare that it doesn't even show in the official statistics for benefit fraud is not something to worry about, or lose any sleep over.

PS. Just for completeness, or if anyone want's to check for themselves: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/fraud-and-error-in-the-benefit-system-financial-year-2024-to-2025-estimates

Grumpy_chap

Newcad said:

I'd suggest that something that is so rare that it doesn't even show in the official statistics for benefit fraud is not something to worry about, or lose any sleep over.

Is the fact that DoC is not a separate identified criteria in the benefit fraud cases evidence that it is not a matter to be concerned with?

As you said, DoC can hinge on the detail of unique cases.  Perhaps DoC arises when individuals have correctly reported the facts of their case and the UC assessment is then adjusted to reflect notional capital.  If nothing was ever withheld, that would not become a benefit fraud statistic but the principles of DoC will still have been applied.

The OP's situation does seem to be particularly unique - individuals gifting large sums of money but then within a relatively short period of time finding themselves to be short of funds.  I expect the majority of people gifting a large sum would only do so if they had no potential to foresee at the time of making the gift that they would subsequently be reliant upon means-tested benefits.  
Hence, the question about what has changed (if anything) between the gift and the UC claim.  That may be critical to the assessment of DoC.

As you noted, the OP seems to have evolved the narrative and is avoiding answering the questions that have been asked for clarity.
There seems to be a lot more to this thread than meets the eye.

The OP seems to have a number of threads where they are commenting about benefits cases in the third person.  In this thread also, the OP refers to assisting someone to make a UC claim.  I wonder in what capacity the OP is assisting, and whether the appropriate liability insurance etc is in place.  Or the OP is the claimant and writing in the third person to make it seem as though it is not themselves that is part of the claiming unit.

Is the couple referred to in this thread, who claimed UC "possibly 18 months ago" and "one of the couple coming up to retirement age" the same couple as in either of these threads:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6487558/mixed-age-couple-uc-claim#latest

Or could it be the people that had a house they did not declare as moved in with a friend:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279703/universal-credit#latest

Did the claimant then sell the house and gift the money to the friend?

With the gaps we are left with, people will attempt to fill in the blanks.

If DoC is rare (as suggested), the OP seems to have stumbled across two possible occasions within their own circle all within a short number of years...

Rubyroobs

Grumpy_chap said:

Newcad said:

I'd suggest that something that is so rare that it doesn't even show in the official statistics for benefit fraud is not something to worry about, or lose any sleep over.

Is the fact that DoC is not a separate identified criteria in the benefit fraud cases evidence that it is not a matter to be concerned with?

As you said, DoC can hinge on the detail of unique cases.  Perhaps DoC arises when individuals have correctly reported the facts of their case and the UC assessment is then adjusted to reflect notional capital.  If nothing was ever withheld, that would not become a benefit fraud statistic but the principles of DoC will still have been applied.

The OP's situation does seem to be particularly unique - individuals gifting large sums of money but then within a relatively short period of time finding themselves to be short of funds.  I expect the majority of people gifting a large sum would only do so if they had no potential to foresee at the time of making the gift that they would subsequently be reliant upon means-tested benefits.  
Hence, the question about what has changed (if anything) between the gift and the UC claim.  That may be critical to the assessment of DoC.

As you noted, the OP seems to have evolved the narrative and is avoiding answering the questions that have been asked for clarity.
There seems to be a lot more to this thread than meets the eye.

The OP seems to have a number of threads where they are commenting about benefits cases in the third person.  In this thread also, the OP refers to assisting someone to make a UC claim.  I wonder in what capacity the OP is assisting, and whether the appropriate liability insurance etc is in place.  Or the OP is the claimant and writing in the third person to make it seem as though it is not themselves that is part of the claiming unit.

Is the couple referred to in this thread, who claimed UC "possibly 18 months ago" and "one of the couple coming up to retirement age" the same couple as in either of these threads:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6487558/mixed-age-couple-uc-claim#latest

Or could it be the people that had a house they did not declare as moved in with a friend:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279703/universal-credit#latest

Did the claimant then sell the house and gift the money to the friend?

With the gaps we are left with, people will attempt to fill in the blanks.

If DoC is rare (as suggested), the OP seems to have stumbled across two possible occasions within their own circle all within a short number of years...

Thanks for your input. I've asked for this thread to be removed. I asked f a simple question on people's experience. I don't need every post I've ever made scrutinizing. I'm not going to post again.

KxMx

Previous posts add context and can guide the advice that people give. I always try to give accurate advice, and remember everyone who posts here offers help to people voluntarily in their own free time. 

Eldi_Dos

Rubyroobs said:

Can anyone tell me if DWP ever look back at a claimant's financial situation prior to claiming UC. For example if someone has given away proceeds of a house in the past couple of years to a family member and then gone on to make a claim for UC would this be picked up by DWP ?
It's been a while since I assisted anyone to make a UC claim but I can't recall them asking anywhere on the initial claim whether a house was recently  sold ?

Government departments periodically do a consolidation of information, so I would think yes would be the answer.

If you have any dubiety about the claim it would be best to ask the government department dealing with it rather than letting it worry you.

LightFlare

Rubyroobs said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Newcad said:

I'd suggest that something that is so rare that it doesn't even show in the official statistics for benefit fraud is not something to worry about, or lose any sleep over.

Is the fact that DoC is not a separate identified criteria in the benefit fraud cases evidence that it is not a matter to be concerned with?

As you said, DoC can hinge on the detail of unique cases.  Perhaps DoC arises when individuals have correctly reported the facts of their case and the UC assessment is then adjusted to reflect notional capital.  If nothing was ever withheld, that would not become a benefit fraud statistic but the principles of DoC will still have been applied.

The OP's situation does seem to be particularly unique - individuals gifting large sums of money but then within a relatively short period of time finding themselves to be short of funds.  I expect the majority of people gifting a large sum would only do so if they had no potential to foresee at the time of making the gift that they would subsequently be reliant upon means-tested benefits.  
Hence, the question about what has changed (if anything) between the gift and the UC claim.  That may be critical to the assessment of DoC.

As you noted, the OP seems to have evolved the narrative and is avoiding answering the questions that have been asked for clarity.
There seems to be a lot more to this thread than meets the eye.

The OP seems to have a number of threads where they are commenting about benefits cases in the third person.  In this thread also, the OP refers to assisting someone to make a UC claim.  I wonder in what capacity the OP is assisting, and whether the appropriate liability insurance etc is in place.  Or the OP is the claimant and writing in the third person to make it seem as though it is not themselves that is part of the claiming unit.

Is the couple referred to in this thread, who claimed UC "possibly 18 months ago" and "one of the couple coming up to retirement age" the same couple as in either of these threads:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6487558/mixed-age-couple-uc-claim#latest

Or could it be the people that had a house they did not declare as moved in with a friend:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6279703/universal-credit#latest

Did the claimant then sell the house and gift the money to the friend?

With the gaps we are left with, people will attempt to fill in the blanks.

If DoC is rare (as suggested), the OP seems to have stumbled across two possible occasions within their own circle all within a short number of years...

Thanks for your input. I've asked for this thread to be removed. I asked f a simple question on people's experience. I don't need every post I've ever made scrutinizing. I'm not going to post again.

I think the consensus is that it’s not a simple question with a simple answer.

Its a potentially complex scenario and the accuracy of the answer will depend on the accuracy (and amount) of information within the question

peteuk

KxMx said:

Previous posts add context and can guide the advice that people give. I always try to give accurate advice, and remember everyone who posts here offers help to people voluntarily in their own free time. 

I would also add, that a full answer cannot be provided without the full information.  So questions such as why did they do this, did they know about the possibility of loosing their job are important.  Although it may feel like the Spanish Inquisition it is to enable a fuller answer/opinion/advice.

But from what I’ve seen of other DoC questions it’s not so obvious, theres a lot depending on the circumstances.  Eg if they gave the money away just before claiming then yes, it would/ may be classed  as DoC.