Inheritance


T

TJ

I am currently in receipt of income support with disability premiums and
DLA. I am about to receive an inheritance that will mean i am no longer
eligible for income support.What is the procedure for resumption
of receipt of benefits when savings are reduced to below the savings limit?
 
Ad

Advertisements

M

mike

I am currently in receipt of income support with disability premiums and
DLA. I am about to receive an inheritance that will mean i am no longer
eligible for income support.What is the procedure for resumption
of receipt of benefits when savings are reduced to below the savings limit?
You reclaim!

If you've spent the money quickly you may be asked to account for it.

If you've splurged the money on frivolous luxuries you could be
considered to have deprived yourself of your savings to get back onto
benefits.

Also if you can't show where it has gone (e.g you had £50k but can only
show what happened to £20k) the DM could treat you as still possessing
that money until you show where it has gone.

This is all assuming you reclaim quite soon. If you're off benefits for
years and maybe do some work the DM will just treat your claim as any
other and look at what you have when you reclaim.

Mike
 
T

TJ

You reclaim!

If you've spent the money quickly you may be asked to account for it.
Define "quickly".The sum will not be large but should be enough to live
on rather modestly for at least 5 years.


If you've splurged the money on frivolous luxuries you could be
considered to have deprived yourself of your savings to get back onto
benefits.
Define 'frivolous luxury'. It is not my intention to splurge out on
things like Caribbean cruises or expensive meals at fancy restaurants.



Also if you can't show where it has gone (e.g you had £50k but can only
show what happened to £20k) the DM could treat you as still possessing
that money until you show where it has gone.
So i need to keep proof of all daily expenditures ie receipts?
 
D

Darkside

[QUOTE="TJ said:
If you've spent the money quickly you may be asked to account for it.
Define "quickly".The sum will not be large but should be enough to live
on rather modestly for at least 5 years.
[/QUOTE]
You're allowed to do that.
Define 'frivolous luxury'. It is not my intention to splurge out on
things like Caribbean cruises or expensive meals at fancy restaurants.
There's no set definition. In theory it's only your motivation that
counts, but in practice you want to avoid arousing their suspicions.
So i need to keep proof of all daily expenditures ie receipts?
Only for large items. A car, three-piece suite - the sort of thing
you'd keep the receipt for anyway. For normal living expenses they'll
just allow so much a week.

Though the rules may have changed again by then...
 
M

mike

Define "quickly".The sum will not be large but should be enough to live
on rather modestly for at least 5 years.
It can't be precisely defined any more than living modestly can be. If
you have to re-roof your hse and make other repairs then those are large
items that will eat your money though very reasonable. A car is
generally considered reasonable though if you get a 100k supercar, not
so much.
Define 'frivolous luxury'. It is not my intention to splurge out on
things like Caribbean cruises or expensive meals at fancy restaurants.
Some would define those as essential! The expenditure should be put
into the contect of your financial situation, you would be just off
benefits (i.e. on a very low income) with no income. IMO spending 10k
on a holiday would be excessive.
So i need to keep proof of all daily expenditures ie receipts?
Not really, if you get through 15k in normal living expenses in a year
(utility, food, transport etc) most would not ask for receipts. You
start the year with 40k and have nothing by the end you might well be
asked. You spend 2k on something keep the receipt. I have receipts for
most of my large items.

All this is predicated on the DM being curious about how you supported
yourself before the claim.
 
T

TJ

It can't be precisely defined any more than living modestly can be. If
you have to re-roof your hse and make other repairs then those are large
items that will eat your money though very reasonable. A car is
generally considered reasonable though if you get a 100k supercar, not
so much.
No house to re-roof etc and highly unlikely to buy car as i don't drive.


Some would define those as essential! The expenditure should be put into
the contect of your financial situation, you would be just off benefits
(i.e. on a very low income) with no income. IMO spending 10k on a
holiday would be excessive.
Spending 2k on a holiday would be excessive to me!


Not really, if you get through 15k in normal living expenses in a year
(utility, food, transport etc) most would not ask for receipts. You
start the year with 40k and have nothing by the end you might well be
asked. You spend 2k on something keep the receipt. I have receipts for
most of my large items.
I would expect to get through less than that.



All this is predicated on the DM being curious about how you supported
 
Ad

Advertisements

A

Arry the hamster

No house to re-roof etc and highly unlikely to buy car as i don't drive.




Spending 2k on a holiday would be excessive to me!




I would expect to get through less than that.



All this is predicated on the DM being curious about how you supported
Don't let them know. Put money into new account.
 
N

Niteawk

TJ said:
Define 'frivolous luxury'. It is not my intention to splurge out on things
like Caribbean cruises or expensive meals at fancy restaurants.
Spending money on a second home or saying you spent the money on an office
which later turned out to be your garage, or spending money on duck houses
and moat cleaning, hiring landscape gardeners and interior designers etc.
Anything like that will be frowned upon.

And when you have to claim benefit again, it will be under the new regime of
ESA. Which means it does not matter what illness or disability you have, if
you still have a pulse Atos will declare you fit for work.
 
M

mike

Don't let them know. Put money into new account.
Firstly the OP sounds like he's an honest sort and intends to do right
by the taxpayer so probably won't consider this as an option.

Secondly depending upon the amount of money this could be identified via
data matching with HMRC. If he's only got a bit more than declared then
this won't trigger but if he's declared a couple of thousand and is
getting interest on 10k then it could get flagged up for investigation.
Not sure how extensively this is used by the JC these days but they
are very keen on prosecuting these days.

Of course as with any inheritance there are often family
jealousies/rivalries, these often lead to info being passed to the local
fraud teams.

Mike
 
T

TJ

Firstly the OP sounds like he's an honest sort and intends to do right
by the taxpayer so probably won't consider this as an option.

I will play by the rules but i think it perverse that the worse off you
are the less likely you are to be able to enjoy the full benefits of an
inheritance.
If i act responsibly and make the money last for a good few years what
with having to pay full rent and 75% council tax i will be living on
considerably less than if i had not received an inheritance and was
still on disability benefits.

For an inheritance to be financially beneficial when you are on
benefits, and not detrimental,it needs to be a lot more substantial
than the one i am about to receive.

It is sad that a legacy that should enable me to have a better financial
quality of life will instead leave me less well off.
 
M

mike

I will play by the rules but i think it perverse that the worse off you
are the less likely you are to be able to enjoy the full benefits of an
inheritance.
Not really, means tested benefits are exactly that and the more you have
the less you get. If that principal wasn't there where would you have
been up to now? Just think of it as a break for the taxpayer who has
been generously supporting you upto now.
If i act responsibly and make the money last for a good few years what
with having to pay full rent and 75% council tax i will be living on
considerably less than if i had not received an inheritance and was
still on disability benefits.
You can legitimately spend it to replace your benefits, there's no
reason that you have to live on less than your benefits. If for example
your benefits (inc HB etc) equate to £15k pa and your inheritance is
£20k I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid if your back on benefits in a
year. Less if you have pre existing debts to clear.
For an inheritance to be financially beneficial when you are on
benefits, and not detrimental,it needs to be a lot more substantial
than the one i am about to receive.
Depends on circumstances, it could be legitimately used to clear debts,
replace worn out furniture, maybe a reasonably priced holiday all
without causing problems such as deprivation. Just keep receipts in
case you need them.
It is sad that a legacy that should enable me to have a better financial
quality of life will instead leave me less well off.
No reason at all that should be the case, sounds like you want to play
the martyr

Mike
 
Ad

Advertisements

N

Niteawk

TJ said:
I will play by the rules but i think it perverse that the worse off you
are the less likely you are to be able to enjoy the full benefits of an
inheritance.
If i act responsibly and make the money last for a good few years what
with having to pay full rent and 75% council tax i will be living on
considerably less than if i had not received an inheritance and was still
on disability benefits.

For an inheritance to be financially beneficial when you are on benefits,
and not detrimental,it needs to be a lot more substantial
than the one i am about to receive.

It is sad that a legacy that should enable me to have a better financial
quality of life will instead leave me less well off.

You have to question the morality of a situation that will undoubtly leave
you worse off in the long run. Do you mind me asking roughly how much you
stand to inherit? AFAIK you are allowed to have x amout in savings before it
affects your benefit, about 16,000 I think, maybe more. Above x amount
benefit is reduced accordingly, by £1.00 for ever hundred I think. You could
reduce the amount by buying essentials like a new washing machine and
cooker, paying for work that needs doing to your house etc, buy a car even,
anyway its something for you to look into before you declare anything.
 
T

TJ

You have to question the morality of a situation that will undoubtly
leave you worse off in the long run. Do you mind me asking roughly how
much you stand to inherit?
Not really sure but i am guessing between 35-50 k.
 
T

TJ

You can legitimately spend it to replace your benefits, there's no
reason that you have to live on less than your benefits. If for example
your benefits (inc HB etc) equate to £15k pa and your inheritance is
£20k I doubt anyone would bat an eyelid if your back on benefits in a
year. Less if you have pre existing debts to clear.

Under the current climate being able to get back on benefits even with a
severe and enduring mental illness, of over 35 years duration, will be
very hard.
This government is intent on saving as much money as possible on the
mentally ill and physically disabled for largely idealogical reasons .
It is one thing to theoretically deem people fit for work it is quite
another for employers to want to employ some of those people .
The government doesn't care if you can realistically expect to find
employment just so long as your benefits are reduced if you can't find
employment.

Frequently you come across horror stories of people with severe mental
and physical problems being refused ESA.

My ability to work is rated as severe ie Able to carry out light
sheltered work in structured, supported setting (e.g. gardening,
sweeping, washing up).
Unfortunately a lot of sheltered work shops have been closed down in
favour of pushing people into full time competitive employment.
 
N

Niteawk

TJ said:
Not really sure but i am guessing between 35-50 k.

That is not a lot of money given the cost of living these days, its about a
years salary for most people if you believe the government. Remember you are
allowed to have £16,000 in the bank and still qualify for Housing Benefit
and Income Support. DLA should not be affected by savings, so keep claiming
it.

If you get the full 50k that leaves you 34k, roughly 2 years money to spend
if you take it very easy. If you get near the 35k mark, 1 years money to
spend before you can reclaim. Guess what I would do if I was you. ;)

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/MoneyTa...tsAndOtherSupport/On_a_low_income/DG_10018926
 
Ad

Advertisements

T

TJ

That is not a lot of money given the cost of living these days, its
about a years salary for most people if you believe the government.

It's less than my father's yearly pension from the F.O .
 
M

mike

Under the current climate being able to get back on benefits even with a
severe and enduring mental illness, of over 35 years duration, will be
very hard.
Probably no harder than staying on it, ESA was supposed to be rolled out
to existing IS/IB customers over the next few yrs, not sure whether that
rollout is being delayed bit sooner or later you will face the ESA
regime and either be allowed to stay on ESA or pushed into signing on.
Or whatever might replace it further down the line.
This government is intent on saving as much money as possible on the
mentally ill and physically disabled for largely idealogical reasons .
Actually it's intent on savining money just about wherever it can,
people on benefits are FAR from the only people feeling the pinch. The
current ESA regime was the LAST government's idea. Whilst this gov has
big plans (and they all claim to have big plans) who knows what the fine
details will be.
It is one thing to theoretically deem people fit for work it is quite
another for employers to want to employ some of those people .
Agreed, but you are assuming you will be found fit for work.
The government doesn't care if you can realistically expect to find
employment just so long as your benefits are reduced if you can't find
employment.
Under current rules you don't lose means tested benefit for not finding
work, you loose benefit for not trying hard enough, refusing suitable
employment & training. I can't see a time limit on means tested
benefits coming in any time soon.
Frequently you come across horror stories of people with severe mental
and physical problems being refused ESA.
And what %age of ESA claimants is that? Certainly there are lots of
stories of cursory medicals by ATOS and TBH I do believe most of them.
What can they learn about you in half an hour? There's plenty of advice
available about presenting your illness/symtoms which would probably be
essential for someone like yourself with a less palpable illness.
My ability to work is rated as severe ie Able to carry out light
sheltered work in structured, supported setting (e.g. gardening,
sweeping, washing up).
Unfortunately a lot of sheltered work shops have been closed down in
favour of pushing people into full time competitive employment.
Mike
 
N

Niteawk

mike said:
Probably no harder than staying on it, ESA was supposed to be rolled out
to existing IS/IB customers over the next few yrs, not sure whether that
rollout is being delayed bit sooner or later you will face the ESA regime
and either be allowed to stay on ESA or pushed into signing on.
Yes, I wonder why they keep putting off the "roll out". The idea of the ESA
regime was to save money, I think it is costing far more to run due to the
amount off appeals they are getting.




Or whatever might replace it further down the line.
I can only guess but I don't think it will be relaced, the government are
real thickos when it comes to saving tax payers money, they may widen the
scope of the medical assessment not fail people who are clearly ill and
bound to win at tribunal.
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

Robbie

Niteawk said:
Yes, I wonder why they keep putting off the "roll out". The idea of the
ESA regime was to save money, I think it is costing far more to run due
to the amount off appeals they are getting.






I can only guess but I don't think it will be relaced, the government
are real thickos when it comes to saving tax payers money, they may
widen the scope of the medical assessment not fail people who are
clearly ill and bound to win at tribunal.
ESA is being abolished in 2015 along with JSA, IS and HB and is being
replaced by Universal Credit.

What a dreadful name for a benefit. Universal Credit - making work pay.
Coming soon to a Jobcentre near you...
 

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Similar Threads

USA Inheritance/gift 2
UK Avoiding IHT and CGT on inherited property company 0
inheritance 5
Inherited annuity to "inherited ira" 10
Inheritance. 1
Inheritance 12
Inheritance 5
Inheritance 7

Top