Benefits and Savings.

Discussion in 'UK Tax Credits and Benefits' started by Tappy Lappy, Sep 16, 2006.

  1. Tappy Lappy

    Tappy Lappy Guest

    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?
     
    Tappy Lappy, Sep 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tappy Lappy

    Robbie Guest

    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
     
    Robbie, Sep 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tappy Lappy

    anthonyberet Guest

    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.
     
    anthonyberet, Sep 16, 2006
    #3
  4. Tappy Lappy

    Tappy Lappy Guest

    "anthonyberet" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Tappy Lappy, Sep 17, 2006
    #4
  5. Tappy Lappy

    Tappy Lappy Guest

    "Robbie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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.
     
    Tappy Lappy, Sep 17, 2006
    #5
  6. Tappy Lappy

    anthonyberet Guest

    Tappy Lappy wrote:
    > "Robbie" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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.
     
    anthonyberet, Sep 18, 2006
    #6
  7. Tappy Lappy

    anthonyberet Guest

    Tappy Lappy wrote:
    > "anthonyberet" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> 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).
     
    anthonyberet, Sep 18, 2006
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alex William Russell
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    482
    Alex William Russell
    Jun 22, 2004
  2. Caroline

    Benefits and Savings

    Caroline, Feb 7, 2004, in forum: UK Tax Credits and Benefits
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    355
    Brett
    Feb 8, 2004
  3. Bobby

    5K savings and a 3K ISA, can i still claim for all benefits?

    Bobby, Oct 30, 2006, in forum: UK Tax Credits and Benefits
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    927
    Robbie
    Oct 30, 2006
  4. Nomen Nescio

    Change of circumstances (savings) and various benefits

    Nomen Nescio, Jun 7, 2009, in forum: UK Tax Credits and Benefits
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    469
  5. Nomen Nescio

    Re: Change of circumstances (savings) and various benefits

    Nomen Nescio, Jun 8, 2009, in forum: UK Tax Credits and Benefits
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    344
    Nomen Nescio
    Jun 8, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page