Accountant Forums


Reply
Thread Tools

Benefits and Savings.

 
 
Tappy Lappy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      09-16-2006, 04:19 PM
Savings between £6,000 and £16,000 affect the amount of housing one receives
I believe. Is there a fixed sum that a person can spend over a yearly
period, and thereby reducing the amount of savings held, without the
suspicion arising that they are reducing their savings intentionally to gain
welfare benefits?


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Robbie
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      09-16-2006, 05:59 PM
Tappy Lappy wrote:
> Savings between £6,000 and £16,000 affect the amount of housing one receives
> I believe. Is there a fixed sum that a person can spend over a yearly
> period, and thereby reducing the amount of savings held, without the
> suspicion arising that they are reducing their savings intentionally to gain
> welfare benefits?
>
>


No, the Decision Maker will look at the reasons for spending rather than
the amount. The test is of one deliberately spending money to increase
benefit entitlement, so the test includes looking at whether the
spending is reasonable in all the circumstances. Even if the spending
wasn't done with the main aim of reducing capital to get extra benefit,
the DM will take into account that the person knew (or is supposed to
know) the capital limits rule and therefore would know that spending
capital would have a positive effect on benefit levels.

Splashing out on a cruise may not be done to deliberately reduce capital
and increase benefit but it may be deemed to be a luxury that is
unreasonable in the circumstances. Replacing furniture that is falling
to bits, decorating the house and maintaining the car may all add up to
the same as the price of a modest cruise but wouldn't necessarily have
the same outcome in the effect they would have on benefit.

Robbie
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
anthonyberet
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      09-16-2006, 10:46 PM
Robbie wrote:
> Tappy Lappy wrote:
>> Savings between £6,000 and £16,000 affect the amount of housing one
>> receives I believe. Is there a fixed sum that a person can spend over
>> a yearly period, and thereby reducing the amount of savings held,
>> without the suspicion arising that they are reducing their savings
>> intentionally to gain welfare benefits?
>>

>
> No, the Decision Maker will look at the reasons for spending rather than
> the amount. The test is of one deliberately spending money to increase
> benefit entitlement, so the test includes looking at whether the
> spending is reasonable in all the circumstances. Even if the spending
> wasn't done with the main aim of reducing capital to get extra benefit,
> the DM will take into account that the person knew (or is supposed to
> know) the capital limits rule and therefore would know that spending
> capital would have a positive effect on benefit levels.
>
> Splashing out on a cruise may not be done to deliberately reduce capital
> and increase benefit but it may be deemed to be a luxury that is
> unreasonable in the circumstances. Replacing furniture that is falling
> to bits, decorating the house and maintaining the car may all add up to
> the same as the price of a modest cruise but wouldn't necessarily have
> the same outcome in the effect they would have on benefit.
>

That's all true, but were you aware of the diminishing capital
calculation in the HB ant CTB regs?
This is very rarely applied (because so complicated to be honest).
If a notional amount of capital is applied because of deliberate
deprivation, then the notional amount is reduced regularly in order to
take into account the amount lost in benefit.
This basically means that if actual capital were spent at the same rate,
then the applicant shouldn't lose out.

HB reg 50 is below - you might want to use a fixed-width font to read it.

The Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 [SI 2006/213]

50. Diminishing notional capital rule

(1) Where a claimant is treated as possessing capital under regulation
49(1) (notional capital), the amount which he is treated as possessing—
(a) in the case of a week that is subsequent to—
(i) the relevant week in respect of which the conditions set out in
paragraph (2) are satisfied; or
(ii) a week which follows that relevant week and which satisfies
those conditions, shall be reduced by an amount determined under
paragraph (3);
(b) in the case of a week in respect of which paragraph (1)(a) does
not apply but where—
(i) that week is a week subsequent to the relevant week; and
(ii) that relevant week is a week in which the condition in
paragraph (4) is satisfied, shall be reduced by the amount determined
under paragraph (4).
(2) This paragraph applies to a benefit week where the claimant
satisfies the conditions that—
(a) he is in receipt of housing benefit; and
(b) but for regulation 49(1), he would have received an additional
amount of housing benefit in that week.
(3) In a case to which paragraph (2) applies, the amount of the
reduction for the purposes of paragraph (1)(a) shall be equal to the
aggregate of—
(a) the additional amount to which sub-paragraph (2)(b) refers;
(b) where the claimant has also claimed council tax benefit, the
amount of any council tax benefit or any additional amount of council
tax benefit to which he would have been entitled in respect of the
benefit week to which paragraph (2) refers but for the application of
regulation 39(1) of the Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006 (notional
capital);
(c) where the claimant has also claimed income support, the amount of
income support to which he would have been entitled in respect of the
benefit week to which paragraph (2) refers but for the application of
regulation 51(1) of the Income Support Regulations(a)(notional capital);
and
(d) where the claimant has also claimed a jobseeker´s allowance, the
amount of an income-based jobseeker´s allowance to which he would have
been entitled in respect of the benefit week to which paragraph (2)
refers but for the application of regulation 113 of the Jobseeker´s
Allowance Regulations (notional capital).
(4) Subject to paragraph (5), for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) the
condition is that the claimant would have been entitled to housing
benefit in the relevant week but for regulation 49(1), and in such a
case the amount of the reduction shall be equal to the aggregate of—
(a) the amount of housing benefit to which the claimant would have
been entitled in the relevant week but for regulation 49(1) and, for the
purposes of this sub-paragraph, if the relevant week is a week to which
regulation 80(4)(a) refers (calculation of weekly amounts), that amount
shall be determined by dividing the amount of housing benefit to which
he would have been so entitled by the number of days in that week for
which he was liable to make payments in respect of the dwelling he
occupies as his home and multiplying the quotient so obtained by 7;
(b) if the claimant would, but for regulation 39(1) of the Council
Tax Benefit Regulations 2006, have been entitled to council tax benefit
or to an additional amount of council tax benefit in respect of the
benefit week which includes the last day of the relevant week, the
amount which is equal to—
(i) in a case where no council tax benefit is payable, the amount to
which he would have been entitled; or
(ii) in any other case, the amount equal to the additional amount of
council tax benefit to which he would have been entitled;
and, for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, if the amount is in
respect of a part-week, that amount shall be determined by dividing the
amount of the council tax benefit to which he would have been so
entitled by the number equal to the number of days in the part-week and
multiplying the quotient so obtained by 7;
(c) if the claimant would, but for regulation 51(1) of the Income
Support Regulations, have been entitled to income support in respect of
the benefit week, within the meaning of regulation 2(1) of those
Regulations (interpretation), which includes the last day of the
relevant week, the amount to which he would have been entitled and, for
the purposes of this sub-paragraph, if the amount is in respect of a
part-week, that amount shall be determined by dividing the amount of the
income support to which he would have been so entitled by the number
equal to the number of days in the part-week and multiplying the
quotient so obtained by 7;
(d) if the claimant would, but for regulation 113 of the Jobseeker´s
Allowance Regulations, have been entitled to an income-based jobseeker´s
allowance in respect of the benefit week, within the meaning of
regulation 1(3) of those Regulations (interpretation), which includes
the last day of the relevant week, the amount to which he would have
been entitled and, for the purposes of this subparagraph, if the amount
is in respect of a part-week, that amount shall be determined by
dividing the amount of the income-based jobseeker´s allowance to which
he would have been so entitled by the number equal to the number of days
in the part-week and multiplying the quotient so obtained by 7.
(5) The amount determined under paragraph (4) shall be re-determined
under that paragraph if the claimant makes a further claim for housing
benefit and the conditions in paragraph (6) are satisfied, and in such a
case—
(a) sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph (4) shall apply as if for
the words "relevant week" there were substituted the words "relevant
subsequent week"; and
(b) subject to paragraph (7), the amount as re-determined shall have
effect from the first week following the relevant subsequent week in
question.
(6) The conditions are that—
(a) a further claim is made 26 or more weeks after—
(i) the date on which the claimant made a claim for housing benefit
in respect of which he was first treated as possessing the capital in
question under regulation 49(1);
(ii) in a case where there has been at least one redetermination in
accordance with paragraph (5), the date on which he last made a claim
for housing benefit which resulted in the weekly amount being
re-determined; or
(iii) the date on which he last ceased to be entitled to housing
benefit, whichever last occurred; and
(b) the claimant would have been entitled to housing benefit but for
regulation 49(1).
(7) The amount as re-determined pursuant to paragraph (5) shall not
have effect if it is less than the amount which applied in that case
immediately before the redetermination and in such a case the higher
amount shall continue to have effect.
(8) For the purposes of this regulation—
(a) "part-week" in paragraph (4)(b) means a period of less than a
week for which council tax benefit is allowed;
(b) "part-week" in paragraph (4)(c) and (d) means—
(i) a period of less than a week which is the whole period for which
income support, or, as the case may be, an income-based jobseeker´s
allowance, is payable; and
(ii) any other period of less than a week for which it is payable;
(c) "relevant week" means the benefit week in which the capital in
question of which the claimant has deprived himself within the meaning
of regulation 49(1)—
(i) was first taken into account for the purpose of determining his
entitlement to housing benefit; or
(ii) was taken into account on a subsequent occasion for the purpose
of determining or redetermining his entitlement to housing benefit on
that subsequent occasion and that determination or redetermination
resulted in his beginning to receive, or ceasing to receive, housing
benefit;
and where more than one benefit week is identified by reference to
heads (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph the later or latest such benefit
week;
(d) "relevant subsequent week" means the benefit week which includes
the day on which the further claim or, if more than one further claim
has been made, the last such claim was made.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tappy Lappy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      09-17-2006, 08:55 AM

"anthonyberet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Robbie wrote:
>> Tappy Lappy wrote:
>>> Savings between £6,000 and £16,000 affect the amount of housing one
>>> receives I believe. Is there a fixed sum that a person can spend over a
>>> yearly period, and thereby reducing the amount of savings held, without
>>> the suspicion arising that they are reducing their savings intentionally
>>> to gain welfare benefits?
>>>

>>
>> No, the Decision Maker will look at the reasons for spending rather than
>> the amount. The test is of one deliberately spending money to increase
>> benefit entitlement, so the test includes looking at whether the spending
>> is reasonable in all the circumstances. Even if the spending wasn't done
>> with the main aim of reducing capital to get extra benefit, the DM will
>> take into account that the person knew (or is supposed to know) the
>> capital limits rule and therefore would know that spending capital would
>> have a positive effect on benefit levels.
>>
>> Splashing out on a cruise may not be done to deliberately reduce capital
>> and increase benefit but it may be deemed to be a luxury that is
>> unreasonable in the circumstances. Replacing furniture that is falling to
>> bits, decorating the house and maintaining the car may all add up to the
>> same as the price of a modest cruise but wouldn't necessarily have the
>> same outcome in the effect they would have on benefit.
>>

> That's all true, but were you aware of the diminishing capital calculation
> in the HB ant CTB regs?
> This is very rarely applied (because so complicated to be honest).
> If a notional amount of capital is applied because of deliberate
> deprivation, then the notional amount is reduced regularly in order to
> take into account the amount lost in benefit.
> This basically means that if actual capital were spent at the same rate,
> then the applicant shouldn't lose out.
>
> HB reg 50 is below - you might want to use a fixed-width font to read it.
>
> The Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 [SI 2006/213]
> 50. Diminishing notional capital rule
> (1) Where a claimant is treated as possessing capital under regulation
> 49(1) (notional capital), the amount which he is treated as possessing—
> (a) in the case of a week that is subsequent to— (i) the relevant week in
> respect of which the conditions set out in paragraph (2) are satisfied; or
> (ii) a week which follows that relevant week and which satisfies those
> conditions, shall be reduced by an amount determined under paragraph (3);
> (b) in the case of a week in respect of which paragraph (1)(a) does not
> apply but where— (i) that week is a week subsequent to the relevant week;
> and (ii) that relevant week is a week in which the condition in paragraph
> (4) is satisfied, shall be reduced by the amount determined under
> paragraph (4). (2) This paragraph applies to a benefit week where the
> claimant satisfies the conditions that— (a) he is in receipt of housing
> benefit; and (b) but for regulation 49(1), he would have received an
> additional amount of housing benefit in that week. (3) In a case to which
> paragraph (2) applies, the amount of the reduction for the purposes of
> paragraph (1)(a) shall be equal to the aggregate of— (a) the additional
> amount to which sub-paragraph (2)(b) refers; (b) where the claimant has
> also claimed council tax benefit, the amount of any council tax benefit or
> any additional amount of council tax benefit to which he would have been
> entitled in respect of the benefit week to which paragraph (2) refers but
> for the application of regulation 39(1) of the Council Tax Benefit
> Regulations 2006 (notional capital); (c) where the claimant has also
> claimed income support, the amount of income support to which he would
> have been entitled in respect of the benefit week to which paragraph (2)
> refers but for the application of regulation 51(1) of the Income Support
> Regulations(a)(notional capital); and (d) where the claimant has also
> claimed a jobseeker´s allowance, the amount of an income-based jobseeker´s
> allowance to which he would have been entitled in respect of the benefit
> week to which paragraph (2) refers but for the application of regulation
> 113 of the Jobseeker´s Allowance Regulations (notional capital). (4)
> Subject to paragraph (5), for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) the
> condition is that the claimant would have been entitled to housing benefit
> in the relevant week but for regulation 49(1), and in such a case the
> amount of the reduction shall be equal to the aggregate of— (a) the amount
> of housing benefit to which the claimant would have been entitled in the
> relevant week but for regulation 49(1) and, for the purposes of this
> sub-paragraph, if the relevant week is a week to which regulation 80(4)(a)
> refers (calculation of weekly amounts), that amount shall be determined by
> dividing the amount of housing benefit to which he would have been so
> entitled by the number of days in that week for which he was liable to
> make payments in respect of the dwelling he occupies as his home and
> multiplying the quotient so obtained by 7; (b) if the claimant would, but
> for regulation 39(1) of the Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006, have
> been entitled to council tax benefit or to an additional amount of council
> tax benefit in respect of the benefit week which includes the last day of
> the relevant week, the amount which is equal to— (i) in a case where no
> council tax benefit is payable, the amount to which he would have been
> entitled; or (ii) in any other case, the amount equal to the additional
> amount of council tax benefit to which he would have been entitled; and,
> for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, if the amount is in respect of a
> part-week, that amount shall be determined by dividing the amount of the
> council tax benefit to which he would have been so entitled by the number
> equal to the number of days in the part-week and multiplying the quotient
> so obtained by 7; (c) if the claimant would, but for regulation 51(1) of
> the Income Support Regulations, have been entitled to income support in
> respect of the benefit week, within the meaning of regulation 2(1) of
> those Regulations (interpretation), which includes the last day of the
> relevant week, the amount to which he would have been entitled and, for
> the purposes of this sub-paragraph, if the amount is in respect of a
> part-week, that amount shall be determined by dividing the amount of the
> income support to which he would have been so entitled by the number equal
> to the number of days in the part-week and multiplying the quotient so
> obtained by 7; (d) if the claimant would, but for regulation 113 of the
> Jobseeker´s Allowance Regulations, have been entitled to an income-based
> jobseeker´s allowance in respect of the benefit week, within the meaning
> of regulation 1(3) of those Regulations (interpretation), which includes
> the last day of the relevant week, the amount to which he would have been
> entitled and, for the purposes of this subparagraph, if the amount is in
> respect of a part-week, that amount shall be determined by dividing the
> amount of the income-based jobseeker´s allowance to which he would have
> been so entitled by the number equal to the number of days in the
> part-week and multiplying the quotient so obtained by 7. (5) The amount
> determined under paragraph (4) shall be re-determined under that paragraph
> if the claimant makes a further claim for housing benefit and the
> conditions in paragraph (6) are satisfied, and in such a case— (a)
> sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph (4) shall apply as if for the words
> "relevant week" there were substituted the words "relevant subsequent
> week"; and (b) subject to paragraph (7), the amount as re-determined shall
> have effect from the first week following the relevant subsequent week in
> question. (6) The conditions are that— (a) a further claim is made 26 or
> more weeks after— (i) the date on which the claimant made a claim for
> housing benefit in respect of which he was first treated as possessing the
> capital in question under regulation 49(1); (ii) in a case where there has
> been at least one redetermination in accordance with paragraph (5), the
> date on which he last made a claim for housing benefit which resulted in
> the weekly amount being re-determined; or (iii) the date on which he last
> ceased to be entitled to housing benefit, whichever last occurred; and (b)
> the claimant would have been entitled to housing benefit but for
> regulation 49(1). (7) The amount as re-determined pursuant to paragraph
> (5) shall not have effect if it is less than the amount which applied in
> that case immediately before the redetermination and in such a case the
> higher amount shall continue to have effect. (8) For the purposes of this
> regulation— (a) "part-week" in paragraph (4)(b) means a period of less
> than a week for which council tax benefit is allowed; (b) "part-week" in
> paragraph (4)(c) and (d) means— (i) a period of less than a week which is
> the whole period for which income support, or, as the case may be, an
> income-based jobseeker´s allowance, is payable; and (ii) any other period
> of less than a week for which it is payable; (c) "relevant week" means the
> benefit week in which the capital in question of which the claimant has
> deprived himself within the meaning of regulation 49(1)— (i) was first
> taken into account for the purpose of determining his entitlement to
> housing benefit; or (ii) was taken into account on a subsequent occasion
> for the purpose of determining or redetermining his entitlement to housing
> benefit on that subsequent occasion and that determination or
> redetermination resulted in his beginning to receive, or ceasing to
> receive, housing benefit; and where more than one benefit week is
> identified by reference to heads (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph the
> later or latest such benefit week; (d) "relevant subsequent week" means
> the benefit week which includes the day on which the further claim or, if
> more than one further claim has been made, the last such claim was made.
>

Thanks Anthony, could you please give a more detailed explaination - only
joking.
Your summing up at the top of the posting was exactly the sort of info I was
after, so
thanks for your time and trouble.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tappy Lappy
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      09-17-2006, 08:57 AM

"Robbie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Tappy Lappy wrote:
>> Savings between £6,000 and £16,000 affect the amount of housing one
>> receives I believe. Is there a fixed sum that a person can spend over a
>> yearly period, and thereby reducing the amount of savings held, without
>> the suspicion arising that they are reducing their savings intentionally
>> to gain welfare benefits?

>
> No, the Decision Maker will look at the reasons for spending rather than
> the amount. The test is of one deliberately spending money to increase
> benefit entitlement, so the test includes looking at whether the spending
> is reasonable in all the circumstances. Even if the spending wasn't done
> with the main aim of reducing capital to get extra benefit, the DM will
> take into account that the person knew (or is supposed to know) the
> capital limits rule and therefore would know that spending capital would
> have a positive effect on benefit levels.
>
> Splashing out on a cruise may not be done to deliberately reduce capital
> and increase benefit but it may be deemed to be a luxury that is
> unreasonable in the circumstances. Replacing furniture that is falling to
> bits, decorating the house and maintaining the car may all add up to the
> same as the price of a modest cruise but wouldn't necessarily have the
> same outcome in the effect they would have on benefit.
>
> Robbie
>

Thanks Robbie, if we take yours and Anthony's than hopefully we will not
ruffle any feathers.


 
Reply With Quote
 
anthonyberet
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      09-18-2006, 09:53 PM
Tappy Lappy wrote:
> "Robbie" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Tappy Lappy wrote:
>>> Savings between ï½£6,000 and ï½£16,000 affect the amount of housing one
>>> receives I believe. Is there a fixed sum that a person can spend over a
>>> yearly period, and thereby reducing the amount of savings held, without
>>> the suspicion arising that they are reducing their savings intentionally
>>> to gain welfare benefits?

>> No, the Decision Maker will look at the reasons for spending rather than
>> the amount. The test is of one deliberately spending money to increase
>> benefit entitlement, so the test includes looking at whether the spending
>> is reasonable in all the circumstances. Even if the spending wasn't done
>> with the main aim of reducing capital to get extra benefit, the DM will
>> take into account that the person knew (or is supposed to know) the
>> capital limits rule and therefore would know that spending capital would
>> have a positive effect on benefit levels.
>>
>> Splashing out on a cruise may not be done to deliberately reduce capital
>> and increase benefit but it may be deemed to be a luxury that is
>> unreasonable in the circumstances. Replacing furniture that is falling to
>> bits, decorating the house and maintaining the car may all add up to the
>> same as the price of a modest cruise but wouldn't necessarily have the
>> same outcome in the effect they would have on benefit.
>>
>> Robbie
>>

> Thanks Robbie, if we take yours and Anthony's than hopefully we will not
> ruffle any feathers.
>
>

Yup - the key thing is not to spend your money to increase the amount of
benefit you get. This can include paying off debts, if the intention is
mainly to increase benefit - despite the obvious good sense in paying
off debts when your income goes down if you can.
If you can show that you had expenses which needed to be paid, then give
the evidence to the benefit authority, if they question the reason for
the disposal of your capital.
 
Reply With Quote
 
anthonyberet
Guest
Posts: n/a
Thanked:
 
      09-18-2006, 10:03 PM
Tappy Lappy wrote:
> "anthonyberet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Robbie wrote:
>>> Tappy Lappy wrote:
>>>> Savings between ï½£6,000 and ï½£16,000 affect the amount of housing one
>>>> receives I believe. Is there a fixed sum that a person can spend over a
>>>> yearly period, and thereby reducing the amount of savings held, without
>>>> the suspicion arising that they are reducing their savings intentionally
>>>> to gain welfare benefits?
>>>>
>>> No, the Decision Maker will look at the reasons for spending rather than
>>> the amount. The test is of one deliberately spending money to increase
>>> benefit entitlement, so the test includes looking at whether the spending
>>> is reasonable in all the circumstances. Even if the spending wasn't done
>>> with the main aim of reducing capital to get extra benefit, the DM will
>>> take into account that the person knew (or is supposed to know) the
>>> capital limits rule and therefore would know that spending capital would
>>> have a positive effect on benefit levels.
>>>
>>> Splashing out on a cruise may not be done to deliberately reduce capital
>>> and increase benefit but it may be deemed to be a luxury that is
>>> unreasonable in the circumstances. Replacing furniture that is falling to
>>> bits, decorating the house and maintaining the car may all add up to the
>>> same as the price of a modest cruise but wouldn't necessarily have the
>>> same outcome in the effect they would have on benefit.
>>>

>> That's all true, but were you aware of the diminishing capital calculation
>> in the HB ant CTB regs?
>> This is very rarely applied (because so complicated to be honest).
>> If a notional amount of capital is applied because of deliberate
>> deprivation, then the notional amount is reduced regularly in order to
>> take into account the amount lost in benefit.
>> This basically means that if actual capital were spent at the same rate,
>> then the applicant shouldn't lose out.
>>
>> HB reg 50 is below - you might want to use a fixed-width font to read it.
>>
>> The Housing Benefit Regulations 2006 [SI 2006/213]
>> 50. Diminishing notional capital rule
>> (1) Where a claimant is treated as possessing capital under regulation
>> 49(1) (notional capital), the amount which he is treated as possessing・
>> (a) in the case of a week that is subsequent to・(i) the relevant week in
>> respect of which the conditions set out in paragraph (2) are satisfied; or
>> (ii) a week which follows that relevant week and which satisfies those
>> conditions, shall be reduced by an amount determined under paragraph (3);
>> (b) in the case of a week in respect of which paragraph (1)(a) does not
>> apply but where・(i) that week is a week subsequent to the relevant week;
>> and (ii) that relevant week is a week in which the condition in paragraph
>> (4) is satisfied, shall be reduced by the amount determined under
>> paragraph (4). (2) This paragraph applies to a benefit week where the
>> claimant satisfies the conditions that・(a) he is in receipt of housing
>> benefit; and (b) but for regulation 49(1), he would have received an
>> additional amount of housing benefit in that week. (3) In a case to which
>> paragraph (2) applies, the amount of the reduction for the purposes of
>> paragraph (1)(a) shall be equal to the aggregate of・(a) the additional
>> amount to which sub-paragraph (2)(b) refers; (b) where the claimant has
>> also claimed council tax benefit, the amount of any council tax benefit or
>> any additional amount of council tax benefit to which he would have been
>> entitled in respect of the benefit week to which paragraph (2) refers but
>> for the application of regulation 39(1) of the Council Tax Benefit
>> Regulations 2006 (notional capital); (c) where the claimant has also
>> claimed income support, the amount of income support to which he would
>> have been entitled in respect of the benefit week to which paragraph (2)
>> refers but for the application of regulation 51(1) of the Income Support
>> Regulations(a)(notional capital); and (d) where the claimant has also
>> claimed a jobseekerï½´s allowance, the amount of an income-based jobseekerï½´s
>> allowance to which he would have been entitled in respect of the benefit
>> week to which paragraph (2) refers but for the application of regulation
>> 113 of the Jobseekerï½´s Allowance Regulations (notional capital). (4)
>> Subject to paragraph (5), for the purposes of paragraph (1)(b) the
>> condition is that the claimant would have been entitled to housing benefit
>> in the relevant week but for regulation 49(1), and in such a case the
>> amount of the reduction shall be equal to the aggregate of・(a) the amount
>> of housing benefit to which the claimant would have been entitled in the
>> relevant week but for regulation 49(1) and, for the purposes of this
>> sub-paragraph, if the relevant week is a week to which regulation 80(4)(a)
>> refers (calculation of weekly amounts), that amount shall be determined by
>> dividing the amount of housing benefit to which he would have been so
>> entitled by the number of days in that week for which he was liable to
>> make payments in respect of the dwelling he occupies as his home and
>> multiplying the quotient so obtained by 7; (b) if the claimant would, but
>> for regulation 39(1) of the Council Tax Benefit Regulations 2006, have
>> been entitled to council tax benefit or to an additional amount of council
>> tax benefit in respect of the benefit week which includes the last day of
>> the relevant week, the amount which is equal to・(i) in a case where no
>> council tax benefit is payable, the amount to which he would have been
>> entitled; or (ii) in any other case, the amount equal to the additional
>> amount of council tax benefit to which he would have been entitled; and,
>> for the purposes of this sub-paragraph, if the amount is in respect of a
>> part-week, that amount shall be determined by dividing the amount of the
>> council tax benefit to which he would have been so entitled by the number
>> equal to the number of days in the part-week and multiplying the quotient
>> so obtained by 7; (c) if the claimant would, but for regulation 51(1) of
>> the Income Support Regulations, have been entitled to income support in
>> respect of the benefit week, within the meaning of regulation 2(1) of
>> those Regulations (interpretation), which includes the last day of the
>> relevant week, the amount to which he would have been entitled and, for
>> the purposes of this sub-paragraph, if the amount is in respect of a
>> part-week, that amount shall be determined by dividing the amount of the
>> income support to which he would have been so entitled by the number equal
>> to the number of days in the part-week and multiplying the quotient so
>> obtained by 7; (d) if the claimant would, but for regulation 113 of the
>> Jobseekerï½´s Allowance Regulations, have been entitled to an income-based
>> jobseekerï½´s allowance in respect of the benefit week, within the meaning
>> of regulation 1(3) of those Regulations (interpretation), which includes
>> the last day of the relevant week, the amount to which he would have been
>> entitled and, for the purposes of this subparagraph, if the amount is in
>> respect of a part-week, that amount shall be determined by dividing the
>> amount of the income-based jobseekerï½´s allowance to which he would have
>> been so entitled by the number equal to the number of days in the
>> part-week and multiplying the quotient so obtained by 7. (5) The amount
>> determined under paragraph (4) shall be re-determined under that paragraph
>> if the claimant makes a further claim for housing benefit and the
>> conditions in paragraph (6) are satisfied, and in such a case・(a)
>> sub-paragraphs (a) to (d) of paragraph (4) shall apply as if for the words
>> "relevant week" there were substituted the words "relevant subsequent
>> week"; and (b) subject to paragraph (7), the amount as re-determined shall
>> have effect from the first week following the relevant subsequent week in
>> question. (6) The conditions are that・(a) a further claim is made 26 or
>> more weeks after・(i) the date on which the claimant made a claim for
>> housing benefit in respect of which he was first treated as possessing the
>> capital in question under regulation 49(1); (ii) in a case where there has
>> been at least one redetermination in accordance with paragraph (5), the
>> date on which he last made a claim for housing benefit which resulted in
>> the weekly amount being re-determined; or (iii) the date on which he last
>> ceased to be entitled to housing benefit, whichever last occurred; and (b)
>> the claimant would have been entitled to housing benefit but for
>> regulation 49(1). (7) The amount as re-determined pursuant to paragraph
>> (5) shall not have effect if it is less than the amount which applied in
>> that case immediately before the redetermination and in such a case the
>> higher amount shall continue to have effect. (8) For the purposes of this
>> regulation・(a) "part-week" in paragraph (4)(b) means a period of less
>> than a week for which council tax benefit is allowed; (b) "part-week" in
>> paragraph (4)(c) and (d) means・(i) a period of less than a week which is
>> the whole period for which income support, or, as the case may be, an
>> income-based jobseekerï½´s allowance, is payable; and (ii) any other period
>> of less than a week for which it is payable; (c) "relevant week" means the
>> benefit week in which the capital in question of which the claimant has
>> deprived himself within the meaning of regulation 49(1)・(i) was first
>> taken into account for the purpose of determining his entitlement to
>> housing benefit; or (ii) was taken into account on a subsequent occasion
>> for the purpose of determining or redetermining his entitlement to housing
>> benefit on that subsequent occasion and that determination or
>> redetermination resulted in his beginning to receive, or ceasing to
>> receive, housing benefit; and where more than one benefit week is
>> identified by reference to heads (i) and (ii) of this subparagraph the
>> later or latest such benefit week; (d) "relevant subsequent week" means
>> the benefit week which includes the day on which the further claim or, if
>> more than one further claim has been made, the last such claim was made.
>>

> Thanks Anthony, could you please give a more detailed explaination - only
> joking.
> Your summing up at the top of the posting was exactly the sort of info I was
> after, so
> thanks for your time and trouble.
>
>

The trick might being getting your benefit authority to actually apply
reg 50 when they should - it is *very* rarely invoked. In fact, I have
never seen an actual case where this was done! (it is sort of an in-joke
amongst nerdy benefit assessors).

Anyway - keep an eye on any notional benefit applied, it should really
be reduced every 3 months. You can simplify the admin of this by
supplying proof of the reduction of your capital and the reasons for it
every 13 weeks or so. (Though there is in fact no limit in how often you
can supply proof of changes in your circumstances - the benefit is
calculated in weekly chunks though).
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
VP Corp Accounting Compensation and Benefits, USA NY New York City : Big 4 Jobs Big Four Alumni Accounting 0 08-05-2006 09:42 AM
dependent care benefits and credit for child and dependent care expenses Tobi Tax 2 03-13-2006 07:37 PM
taxable soc sec benefits and turbo tax 2004 deluxe-help! humblejohn@anonymous.to Tax 1 04-12-2005 08:36 PM
section 127 employer paid eduction benefits - vesting of benefits and use after employment Alex William Russell Tax 0 06-22-2004 02:21 AM
Incapacity Benefits.......err.........Benefits!! Si UK Tax Credits and Benefits 18 10-05-2003 06:13 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04 AM.
Posts in this forum do not constitute the advice of AccountantForums.com or its members. Financial advice should always be taken from qualified advisors before committing to a financial decision.