Confused in need of help !!

[aeris]

Hi everyone, im posting ln behalf of a very upset and terrified friend.

 

Sorry its a long post and prob a little confusing lol

 

The problem is this, my friend has been to an appeal for income support. Two children 6ys and 14.

Did recive hb when was on IS about a year ago

 

Now my friends grandfather ufortunaly died a year ago and left her some money, not a huge ammount.

This was spent sensibly and all exspenditure was checked with the dwp to which all was told yes this is fine and ' acceptable '. The second had car ammount,was ' acceptable' and within the ' Guide lines'

 

EVERYTHING was checked before purchasing: A course to further friends education to find a job at local school, a second hand car, 1 weekend away,a new mattress and some bedding for the eldest child. And £3,000 in an account for the children when turn 18 Nothing else was bought, no new kitchen or anything like that, no home improvements etc

 

All of this was 'ok ed' by the dwp.

 

This was a year ago. Now, my friend re applied for income support recently as the funds have now depleated ( friend works a few hours a week during lunch time because of the youngest 6 yrs old coming home from school) and could never afford child minder.

The money that was left to friend was NOT a lot and with two growing children, did not last long ! Buss pass for eledst is a small fortune! And obviously rent council tax etc

 

The application was denied. The reasons for this were the dwp classed the course as an UNACCEPTABLE expenditure as well as the bedding from argos !! And i think the second hand car. Dispite being told that this WAS ACCEPTABLE The weekend away they said was FINE !??

 

Now i dont know that much, but im sure this is not right!

 

Anyway, she appealed. It didnt go well. The judge did not want to know about any of the ' guide lines'

 

He said ' THERE ARNT ANY' even for buying a car. What so its ok to go and but a £20,000 car ??!!

The judge just dismissed all of the points of the reasons my friend appealed in the first place, just didnt want to know.

 

He just wasnt interested at all that the dwp had at first said these purchases are ' accepatable' and have now said there not. All the judge wanted to say was what the ' law ' says nothing to do with what the dwp so called ' guide lines say. Which my friend followed to the T.

 

My freind was so compleatly un prepared for this as my friend was under the immpession that they were there to dispute that the dwp had all of a sudden changed thier minds, which is excatly why my friend had appealed to the decision for the reasons the dwp had got wrong.

 

 

Can any one shed any light on this, aparently my friend cannot appeal against this. ' point of law ' is slightly confusing for me! My friend is so distraught about all this. I might be wrong but, i dont this is quite right? Surley the dwp cant just chage thier minds like that ?

 

One phone call that was made to enquire about purchase, my fried was told that '' We in the office think thats ok'' My friend did phone again to double check !! So we go by what they ' think in the office' ? Not the dwp 'offical' guide lines ? Of which there isnt any apparently ??

!!

 

Im confused lol

I would be so greatful if anyone can help with this or any advise or shed some light on this.

 

My friend will loose every thing, roof over thier heads ( they rent) everything!

I assure you my friend has not disposed of the inhreitance 'just to back on benefit'

 

I havent been on benifit for a couple of years now so i dont know much about it now.

Money is under the guide allowance for IS etc

One more question, does a clerk of the court need to be present at the tribunal/ appeal ? Because there wasnt one? I thought there had to be ?

 

Thank you so much for any help

 

aeris

 

sorry again for such a long post

Edited October 27, 2012 by aeris

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi, Welcome to CAG,

 

Did your friend keep a written record of the original DWP agreement that the expenditure was reasonable?

 

There are indeed guidlines laid down but the seem to relate to what amounts are reasonable for an individual to have to pay back an overpayment or loan from the DWP.

 

I will alert members of the team more informed on the benifits area to get more help for you.

[aeris]

Thank you so much, i belive my friend did.

 

Everything that was purchased was acceptable by the dwp. Everything was check before anything was bought and guidence was sought to make sure it was ok. My friend made sure to check as not to do anything wrong.

 

 

My friend was told to keep all recipts etc as these would be needed too return to IS and HB

 

Im sure something is not quite right !

The only thing i could advise to my friend was the cab but they are understandably so busy. Obviously there would be no HB and this is a serious problem with 2 young children.

thank you again.

 

Aeris

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

Just to clarify please, does your friend have written confirmation from the DWP that the expenditure was OK, as well as the receipts?

 

If this gets more complicated or involved, is it possible that your friend could become a member so we can talk to her directly?

 

My best, HB

[Nystagmite]

when you say it was checked with DWP, does she have this in writing?

[estellyn]

The problem is that once she gets to appeal 'the DWP told me its ok' is not an argument that can be used without proof - everyone says they were told such and such was OK, and Tribunal judges pay little heed of it without evidence.

 

Her first step should be to request a statement of reasons from the Tribunal and a transcript of proceedings (usually the judge's notes). Then take these to an experienced benefits caseworker who can tell her if an error of law has been made.

 

How much was spent in what period of time? - that is relevant.

 

And no, paying for a course for a friend will never be considered acceptable expenditure. Neither will putting money away for her children. It will always look as though it has been done in order to be able to qualify to reclaim benefits.

[aeris]

The course was for herself no one else. im just double checking now .Should a clerk have been present ?

 

thank you

 

aeris

[honeybee13]

How many tribunal members were there please?

 

HB

[aeris]

There was just the judge, my friend and her friend as representing her. No one else .

 

Aeris

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

This sounds like a ''Chambers'' county court hearing.

[aeris]

It was at the tribunal law courts?

the clerk was called away to sort out someones money for car park.

 

thank you

 

Aeris

Edited October 27, 2012 by aeris

[estellyn]

This sounds like a ''Chambers'' county court hearing.

 

No, it's a typical benefit Tribunal hearing - where the matter does not involve a disability or sickness related benefit, there is only a judge.

[estellyn]

It was at the tribunal law courts?

the clerk was called away to sort out someones money for car park.

 

thank you

 

Aeris

 

The clerk doesn't have to be there.

[estellyn]

Even if it's possible to argue the car and the course, the money in the children's account is a no no - it will look to a judge as if it was a deliberate attempt to get below a capital limit. What would the savings level be if the money had not been transferred to the kids' accounts?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Thanks for that !!!

[aeris]

ok, thank you, i will pass this on, at the moment shes an absolute mess. Its hard to watch to be honest

I think the trust money put away for the children he changed his mind about.

she had to wait for decsion via letter. I dont understand the judge saying that there are NO GUIDE LINES ?

thank you again

 

aeris

Edited October 27, 2012 by aeris

[gemspan]

My thoughts are that if there are no guidelines then why was she refused Income Support? You are allowed to have £16,000 in savings - I think but somebody may know more.

 

The case law would, I imagine, be the fact that the judge didn't rule in your friend's favour to be awarded income support. If there are no guidelines then it shouldnt matter what she spent the money on as long as it was below £16,000.

 

I would try and find out if there are guidelines used by the DWP for this sort of thing. Best go to CAB or a Benefits Adviser. It doesn't seem right to me.

 

If you could confirm how much the ineritance was and how much she has left now and how much was left when she put aside money for her children that would be great. Try googling it.

[Nystagmite]

If you have more than £6k in savings, your IS is reduced. For every £250 (or part of) over £6k, you lose £1 a week. Once it reaches £16k, you have no entitlement to income based benefits.

[antone]

My thoughts are that if there are no guidelines then why was she refused Income Support? You are allowed to have £16,000 in savings - I think but somebody may know more.

 

The case law would, I imagine, be the fact that the judge didn't rule in your friend's favour to be awarded income support. If there are no guidelines then it shouldnt matter what she spent the money on as long as it was below £16,000.

 

I would try and find out if there are guidelines used by the DWP for this sort of thing. Best go to CAB or a Benefits Adviser. It doesn't seem right to me.

 

If you could confirm how much the ineritance was and how much she has left now and how much was left when she put aside money for her children that would be great. Try googling it.

 

There's been some garbled information somewhere along the lines - there most certainly are guidelines for deprivation of capital, there just isn't a specific, defined way in law to tell what is or isn't deprivation. It's a case of the DM's discretion in most cases, and, as we can tell from this thread, the DM's decision can be appealed. The problem is that in this case, both the DM and the Appeals Tribunal have ruled against the OP's friend. That makes things more difficult.

 

And it's not as simple as being "allowed to have £16k in savings" - as Nystagmite mentioned, savings over £6k reduce your entitlement and this could result in no benefit at all being payable. If the money has been spent, then it very often does matter what it was spent on. From the information we have here so far, the issue of how the money was spent would seem to be central to the whole case.