Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Recommended Topics

  • Posts

    • I'm on a Covid run all this week, for some reason I thought it would be quite easy, starts in St Andrews then Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Cumbernauld then Glasgow over 200 miles. I drop of empty Test boxes and collect the ones that are ready to go to the Labs for results.   Every Testing Station today said they had not been very busy over the weekend, it was quite nice weather over the weekend which is more than likely the reason for the lack of numbers.
    • Credit file: One account(showing balance of £0 due) for main line showing missed payments from December 2020 (when the contract itself was terminated in August 2020). One account(showing loan of £204 due) for second line showing as being in default since November 2020. As a result of these my credit score has gone down-this is due directly to these two accounts which showed on my credit report as a 'negative factor'   Credit disadvantage: When my Virgin contract ended, I attempted to take up a new contract with another company. I was prevented from doing so at Vodafone as they required a deposit of £150, plus I would not be entitled to the free handset, but would have had to pay £179 for it and the monthly payments would be increasd. I was able to take out a handset at Three, but again instead of being entitled to it free, I had to pay £189 for it.   I will check carefully to estimate the amount of time involved-I have queries going back to October 2019 attempting to deal with this.   I have also received from Virgin another letter giving me the password to unlock the files they sent me(shame it doesn't actually work) and a second email again confirming they will erase my data unless they have to keep it.   I'm wondering if they're planning to use that email as their response for the ICO where he gave them until March 11 to either tell me what they are going to do to put things right or explain why they believe they have met their data protection obligations'?      
    • “We want to get Amigo back to life again” – CEO’s statement as lender posts £87m loss View the full article
    • My case is adjourned to this Month. I'm about to send out my Supplementary Witness Statement. Could someone please check if the following is efficient? My court cost is now over £1000 as it was adjourned 3 times  Thanks!   Supplementary Witness Statement to address the new case exhibits introduced at the hearing on 10 November 2020   VCS v Ward  1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location. Both involve flawed reasoning and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.  Semark-Jullien Case  2.       Whilst it is known that another case that was struck out on the same basis was appealed to Salisbury Court (the Semark-Jullien case), the parking industry did not get any finding one way or the other about the illegality of adding the same costs twice. The Appeal Judge merely pointed out that he felt that insufficient information was known about the Semark-Jullien facts of the case (the Defendant had not engaged with the process and no evidence was in play, unlike in the Crosby case) and so the Judge listed it for a hearing and felt that case (alone) should not have been summarily struck out due to a lack of any facts and evidence.  3.       The Judge at Salisbury correctly identified as an aside, that costs were not added in the Beavis case. That is because this had already been addressed in ParkingEye's earlier claim, the pre-Beavis High Court (endorsed by the Court of Appeal) case ParkingEye v Somerfield  a. (ref para 419): https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2011/4023.html  ''It seems to me that, in the present case, it would be difficult for ParkingEye to justify, as against any motorist, a claim for payment of the enhanced sum of £135 if the motorist took the point that the additional £60 over and above the original figure of £75 constituted a penalty. It might be possible for ParkingEye to show that the additional administrative costs involved were substantial, though I very much doubt whether they would be able to justify this very large increase on that basis. On the face of it, it seems to me that the predominant contractual function of this additional payment must have been to deter the motorist from breaking his contractual obligation to pay the basic charge of £75 within the time specified, rather than to compensate ParkingEye for late payment. Applying the formula adopted by Colman J. in the Lordsvale case, therefore, the additional £60 would appear to be penal in nature; and it is well established that, in those circumstances, it cannot be recovered, though the other party would have at least a theoretical right to damages for breach of the primary obligation.''  
    • I'm ready to reject Hermes offer and issue the letter before claim. I've registered on the MCOL website and filled in my claim with the below particulars.   Should I tick the box to send the particulars directly to the defendant?   Should I also tick the box for the right to claim interest. If so do what date would I put for when the money became owed,  what is daily rate of interest up to the date of judgment?    Thanks again      
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Income Support and max bank balance


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1910 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I will soon be being left money from a Will to the sum of 11 thousand. What can I spend it on and still keep some so it does not affect Income Support?

Edited by overdone
typo

If my post helped you feel better, click my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a tricky question, really. To be safe, I'm going to give you the "official" answer, but please note that I am not making any judgements. We just have to be a bit careful.

 

The basic answer is that if you have savings, you are expected to use them to live on. As such, money would be deducted from your weekly IS payment - about £20 in this case. That's the rate at which you're expected to use up your savings. In many cases, if you spend money unnecessarily in order to secure entitlement to benefits, you will be treated as if you still had the money when your payments are calculated. This is known as "deprivation of capital".

 

Each case is considered on its merits - if you spend a large sum of money when in receipt of a benefit, the matter may be referred to a Decision Maker to determine whether deprivation of capital has occurred. For that reason, we can't give you a comprehensive list of things that are and are not allowed - it very much depends on your personal circumstances. However, there are a few things which would not normally be considered to be deprivation. Essential household repairs, for example - if you need a new cooker, heating boiler or such things, or if you need to fix a leaky roof or dodgy brickwork. If your car is falling to bits and you need a new one, this would normally be OK as well. You can repay debts as they fall due, but paying them off early might be seen as a problem.

 

Other folks might have some more examples, but you get the general idea.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you receive council tax support, you need to check the rules with your council. Some stop full support at 6k, for example.

 

Whatever you do, keep the receipts.

 

If you are unsure about whether something is ok, phone up and get it in writing. That way, you've got more than "but so and so said I can spend it on this".

Link to post
Share on other sites
can you not get the money in cash and keep it under the mattress

 

:nono: Not that this Forum condones Benefit Fraud

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, it's going to look it a bit strange that one minute you had £11k put into your account and then it was withdrawn and you can't account for it. (whereas spending it on a car, household stuff, you've got the receipts for it)

Link to post
Share on other sites

My sister is prepared to retain it in the executors account as she maintains no one can force me to accept my inheritance.

Edited by overdone
typo

If my post helped you feel better, click my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My sister is prepared to retain it in the executors account as she maintains no one can force me to accept my inheritance.

 

Unfortunately, you would still have a beneficial interest in the full amount as the money is being held in trust. If the DWP or LA found out about it in years to come, you could find yourself in real trouble.

 

If there are other family members who would benefit more from the inheritance, you could look at a Deed of Variation: In effect, giving up your inheritance and passing it on to someone else. Probably not the best thing to do... I would suggest investing in some fixed term savings bonds and use the remainder to make life a little more comfortable.

  • Haha 1

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

Quote
No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting situation, first of all a deed of variation could/would be viewed as 'deprivation of capital.'

 

AFAIAA you are not deemed to have the money until it hits your account so it can be kept within the estate. You will of course have a beneficial interest in this money, but it could be argued you have had this since the day testator died.

 

The executor of the will does not have to tell you of any forthcoming bequest so you could claim you didn't know of the legacy. How long the executor could hold off paying you is debatable but certainly a year or so from the granting of probate.

 

Your easiest choice is to take the money and tell the DWP. You can then pay of any debts, buy new household goods, clothes and a car if you fancy, you'd be amazed at the sort of spending that has been adjudged to be allowable by decision makers..If you are unsure you can always ask them formally whether spending on a certain thing would be allowable. No luxuries though; foreign holidays are probably out, definitely no tomfoolery. You should soon be below the £6,000 threshold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to be careful with paying off debts. If it's the minimum repayment, it's fine. But if it's the whole lot, that could be seen as deprivation. There's something about it reaching court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually repayment of debt is only accepted if it was deemed that the debt had to be repaid with immediate effect by the lender.

Very little is deemed as an essential these days, a holiday would be classed as luxury unless a Doctor wrote a letter stating it was essential for the state of your health, new furniture you may have to prove that your existing furniture was no longer for for purpose.

If you do decide to pay anything off then keep receipts and be prepared to defend why you spent the money, you find it isn't allowed and you are still treated as having the capital.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bank overdrafts are deemed to be repayable immediately.

 

Why doesn't your sister give you an interim payment of £5,400 (not notifiable to DWP) which you can spend on living expenses, upgrading appliances etc , when that is gone she can make a final payment of £5,400 , then you will never be over the threshold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bank overdrafts are deemed to be repayable immediately.

 

Why doesn't your sister give you an interim payment of £5,400 (not notifiable to DWP) which you can spend on living expenses, upgrading appliances etc , when that is gone she can make a final payment of £5,400 , then you will never be over the threshold.

 

Bad idea. All savings, even those below the threshold, are notifiable to the DWP and a scheme like this would be noticed eventually. And when it is noticed, it wouldn't be good news for the OP.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Changes in savings are not notifiable unless the amount goes over £5,500. The amount that people have in the bank changes virtually every day so smaller changes are not notifiable.

Stating the exact amount of savings is usually only done when applying for benfits, you'll always be below the threshold anyway.

 

An executor has great leeway to distribute an estate when and how they want, as long as it complies with the terms of the will. Interim payments are commonly given to beneficiaries, as sometimes monies must be witheld by the estate for a fixed period to satisfy any potential liabilities.

 

The question should be is it lawful not whether it is suspicious. I'll admit it is pretty slippery but probably no more than many tax-avoidance schemes like bed and breakfasting. If any member can see a flaw in the strategy I'd be grateful for their opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having read this thread over the past few days, I am surprised to see that you are still trying to find ways to avoid notifying the DWP IF you get this windfall.

 

Asking members to assist you is not the best thing to do is it? The point of law that you seem to not see is that if you come in to a large sum of money and fail to disclose this then you could face a criminal investigation by the DWP.

 

This could see you getting a record, sanctions, a civil penalty or even losing your benefits all together. If this is what you want then by all means carry on. I will add a link to what you must declare shortly..

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Changes in savings are not notifiable unless the amount goes over £5,500. The amount that people have in the bank changes virtually every day so smaller changes are not notifiable.

Stating the exact amount of savings is usually only done when applying for benfits, you'll always be below the threshold anyway.

 

An executor has great leeway to distribute an estate when and how they want, as long as it complies with the terms of the will. Interim payments are commonly given to beneficiaries, as sometimes monies must be witheld by the estate for a fixed period to satisfy any potential liabilities.

 

The question should be is it lawful not whether it is suspicious. I'll admit it is pretty slippery but probably no more than many tax-avoidance schemes like bed and breakfasting. If any member can see a flaw in the strategy I'd be grateful for their opinion.

 

The £5,500 limit is the point at which the DWP will ask for proof of savings - if you declare a lower amount they will normally just take your word for it. It's not that you're not required to notify them of any lower amount - you should tell them about everything, within reason.

 

On the second point, "lawful" doesn't really enter into this. It's perfectly legal to receive an inheritance and spend it on whatever you want - the issue is Deprivation of Capital, which is not a crime. However, attempting to hide savings could well be an offence, and you can't assume it's OK not to tell the DWP just because you've contrived to keep the amounts below some arbitrary figure.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING. EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

The idea that all politicians lie is music to the ears of the most egregious liars.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How long does money have to sit in a bank acc to be considered saved?

Edited by overdone
ty

If my post helped you feel better, click my scales.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll respond to your points;

 

mikeymack2002- nothing I am suggesting is illegal so sanctions and criminal records don't enter into it. And if 'Asking members to assist you is not the best thing to do is it?' what is the point of this forum?

 

Nystagmite- your link says nothing to refute my argument, you must declare your capital when you claim, but as long as you remain under £6,000 you don't have to tell them about changes. But its a moot point anyway.If you wish you can send the DWP, or whoever, a daily update of your bank balance because in my plan it will always be under £6,000.

 

antone-You say that 'lawful doesn't enter into it', but what is lawful or not is the whole point of the argument. I agree the £6,000 threshold is an arbitrary figure, but it is the DWP's arbitrary figure so it has effect in law. 'Contriving ' to keep your capital under £6,000 is not an offence any more than 'contriving 'to keep your speed under 30mph whilst passing a speed camera. The bottom line is that if you are paid in 2 instalments you never go over the threshold so you never lose entitlement to means-tested benefits.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...