Inheritance and universal credit

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81905307#Comment_81905307

The issue is even DMs don't understand what DoC really is.
The DM might argue that a £1500 is too much, but that alone is not enough to show DoC if that was the sole reason than an appeal would be an easy win, as the DM hasn't show that the laptop was bought to reduce capital to increase UC.
There is not going to be any MacBooks for £300, so if a person has used Macs, then it's not unreasonable for them to buy one.
Like I said above some people (including DMs) think a person on benefits has to buy the cheapest, but that's not based on any law or ruling, just their prejudice view.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81905389#Comment_81905389

Why would it be for someone having over £17.4k to spend £1500 on a Macbook? (under 10% of their money) Are they unreasonable if they have £18k? so not bringing it under £16k?

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81905771#Comment_81905771

Actually logically increasing debt can't be DoC because capital isn't being reduced.
I do think the this area of law hasn't caught up yet with the way people buys things these days.

Altior

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81905832#Comment_81905832

I'm citing what would be the most palpable example. I'm supposing someone actually carrying out DoC in real life wouldn't be daft enough to make it so transparent as my hypothetical. However I feel like it naturally follows that the further you are away from a specific trigger point, the tougher it would be to demonstrate.

Again in reality, what is the likelihood of someone of limited means with little income, unemployed, purchasing a £1500 laptop? If there's no rational justification. In the real world it is 99% DoC I'd say, but proving intent that would stand up in court is another matter entirely.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81905895#Comment_81905895

How it should be looked at is the whole picture, not just a purchase, does that person has a history of buying & using Apple products, if so than keeping on buying them isn't unreasonable, it would be more unreasonable to make them swap to a Chromebook. But if that person used Chromebooks then suddenly spent £1500 on a Macbook, then that would be harder to justify.

What needs to be shown with DoC is a change of habbit.

Altior

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81905890#Comment_81905890

It's logical (common sense!) that intentionally creating a new debt to then pay off in order to claim or increase benefit would obviously be DoC, in my view at least. However, as you allude to, I don't see that the actual law as it stands accounts for such a scenario. I've seen no reference to when the debt is created, only that paying any debt off is permitted. So as long as an individual has a plausible reason for creating the debt, other than benefits, I don't see how DoC could be irrefutably proven.

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81905907#Comment_81905907

Both make sense, but both can't be legally correct I expect one day there will be a ruling on which one is.

Altior

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81905906#Comment_81905906

I agree yes, but a history of purchasing similar laptops at similar intervals would be rational. Personally I don't feel other Apple products are relevant. Buying an iPhone doesn't mean you need a Mac. But, I suppose if their house was shrine for Apple products, it might pass muster 😄

Again in the real world I think someone who has tasted this world in another life (needing to try and prove intent), is at a decent advantage. I suspect a very significant amount of people make their lives worse through a fear of DoC, when it wouldn't apply to them if they followed through on their desired activities.

Thanks for the chat/debate, it really helps me to crystalise things, should I go on to claim UC. Like many people I suppose, I want to stay on the right side of the rules/legislation/law, but at the same time, give myself as much scope as possible. As these capital limits are quite punishing, especially the £6K one. Which really doesn't give you much scope to cover the unexpected. So you need as much mitigation in place as possible (as I see it).

HillStreetBlues

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81905920#Comment_81905920

The issue with DoC is intent, how do you get into someone's mind when they do have a vestige interest on not being totally honest.
People do make rash decisions, they go to a showroom and are up-sold something they might not even need or in some cases really actually want, but are caught up in that moment. Being "stupid" isn't grounds for DoC, they would have to have bought that product to reduce their capital to get/increase UC.

I sail close to the wind as I'm stoozing on some CC, (end of Dec I had £5999.40), if I'm going to have over £6k at the end of my AP I overpay my credit card to get it under. £6k certainly isn't as much as it use to be.