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

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.

 

No, you missed the point: "lawful" doesn't enter into it because there is no crime involved in spending one's own money. Deprivation of capital is not, in and of itself, an offence, it's merely something that will be taken into account when entitlement to means tested benefits is considered. OP could receive all the money at once, or in eleven separate installments of £1000 or whatever, spend it all on fine wines and luxury holidays, and commit no crime whatsoever provided he or she did not attempt to hide this from the DWP. We do have to be careful about assuming that keeping capital under an arbitrary limit will, under all circumstances, protect a claimant from any suggestion that deprivation has taken place.

 

You do seem to be aware of potential problems with your proposal, since you were careful to select £5,400 as the amount the OP should seek from the estate, presumably in the erroneous belief that there is no requirement to report smaller amounts than this. But even if you're right and I am wrong about that, why did you not select £5,500 as the amount? Well, because you believe OP would be required to report that amount, but why, if what you propose is not a problem, would a requirement to report be a concern?

 

The real stumbling point, of course, is that a claimant can be treated as having notional capital if that capital would be available on application (see DMG29, 29857). The reason I used the word "contrived" is quite simple: a deal reached with an executor of an estate to delay payment of an inheritance for no reason other than to circumvent DWP capital rules is is pretty much the definition of "contrived". This is important: deprivation requires an intent to secure entitlement to means tested benefits, and it's normally fairly easy to argue that yes, you had the money and spent it but no, you did not do so with the intent to secure benefit entitlement. It won't be so easy to make that argument if you've struck a deal with the executor for that specific purpose.

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

So if she gives me one cheque for 5,500 made out to me and the rest in a cheque for a garage I could buy a car?

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
So if she gives me one cheque for 5,500 made out to me and the rest in a cheque for a garage I could buy a car?

 

If you have a justifiable need for a car (and it doesn't have to be much justification: cars are not luxury items for many people) then you could probably just buy one with cash or a cheque of your own and not have any problems with deprivation. The mere fact that money is issued to you in the form of a cheque to a third party won't put you in the clear, though.

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

Just checking through some more DMGs on this matter, and Konark is right and I was wrong about one point: it is indeed not necessary to report capital changes that do not result in the claimant having capital over £5,500. Fair enough - when someone is right they're right etc, and I concede that point.

 

Still, my basic point stands: deliberately delaying receipt of capital is a bad idea, for the reasons I mentioned above.

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

 

if it were me, i would do this. the guvment have bigger fish to fry than you. just plead ignorance and have a happy life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

overdone- getting your sister to buy a car for you would probably go 'under the radar' because you'd stay under the threshold, but technically this is still deprivation of capital unless the DWP consider the car to be reasonable spending, which they may do if you ask them, it's been allowed before..

 

antone- You say 'The real stumbling point, of course, is that a claimant can be treated as having notional capital if that capital would be available on application (see DMG29, 29857)'. A beneficiary of a will cannot take capital 'on application', certainly not during the 'executor's year'; they get their bequest when the executor chooses to give it them and not before. It would be very difficult to prove that any deal had been struck with the executor..When solicitors act as executors they often release an interim payment as assets are sold whilst hanging on to some money in case of surprise creditors or long-lost relatives turning up so staged payments are quite common..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not an inheritance but a similar situation and here's hiw it actually panned out for me.

As part of divorce settlement i had the house and the kids and did not have to sell till the youngest left school at 16.

Put house on market and it sold, the property made around £30k and this was split between myself and ex after expenses.

At this point i of course had to move with the kids and into private rented i went at £550 per month. As the divorce left me in a financial mess i had to pay 6 months upfront, plus deposit so £4300.

My belongings went into storage for a couple of weeks at a tune of £350 plus removal van and then van again 2 weeks later so £700 altogether

I bought new furniture for new house throughout, sofas, beds etc, 2k worth i think and i replaced my car @ £3,600. All in all i soent around £11k and then git a letter from income support which i receive as i am carer to my disabled son, asking about the capital, i told them everything i had done with it and how much i had left. Because i was up front and honest with them from the start i had no problems at all and they accepted my explanations as i had receipts and/or bank statements.

The point is this and in answer to your original post, you can soend it on whatever you like but be careful because IS will ask. If you need to repkace things such as your car or old worn out furniture, thats fine, i pretty much re furnished a full house, i just didnt go overboard with flashing the cash

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you need a car, theres nothing stopping you taking the full inheritance and buying one, £6k isnt unreasonable for a decent reliable car these days.

I will stand corrected if anyone knows if there is a limit under IS rules of deprivation of capital

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

antone- You say 'The real stumbling point, of course, is that a claimant can be treated as having notional capital if that capital would be available on application (see DMG29, 29857)'. A beneficiary of a will cannot take capital 'on application', certainly not during the 'executor's year'; they get their bequest when the executor chooses to give it them and not before. It would be very difficult to prove that any deal had been struck with the executor..When solicitors act as executors they often release an interim payment as assets are sold whilst hanging on to some money in case of surprise creditors or long-lost relatives turning up so staged payments are quite common..

 

The key points are: capital cannot be counted as belonging to the claimant until that person becomes the beneficial owner of the capital. However, if the claimant intentionally defers receipt of capital in order to secure entitlement to means tested benefits, then it is likely to be treated as notional capital. I accept that there are cases where an executor may, for perfectly valid reasons, be unable to release all or part of the money for some time. But that's not what we're talking about here: the suggestion was to work something out with the executor to release the capital in smaller sums specifically in order to conceal the existence of said capital from the DWP. What you're saying now is that this would be a relatively easy scheme to get away with, and that may well be true. But it is, quite clearly, deprivation.

 

It's academic now from the OP's point of view, but the best way to deal with these sorts of situations is to use various types of trust. It is possible, with planning, to preserve means tested benefit entitlement while still using the money for the benefit of the claimant.

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

"It's academic now from the OP's point of view, but the best way to deal with these sorts of situations is to use various types of trust. It is possible, with planning, to preserve means tested benefit entitlement while still using the money for the benefit of the claimant."

 

I do know of someone with money in a trust fund of sorts, what it is I don't know, but they still get means tested benefits like income support. They can access it too but would then have to declare it to Dhss. And lose money. This is all legal. Any idea what trust this might be as a friend of mine had a solicitor who was sorting the same deal out for him. Lost touch with both friends so dont know where to start.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
"It's academic now from the OP's point of view, but the best way to deal with these sorts of situations is to use various types of trust. It is possible, with planning, to preserve means tested benefit entitlement while still using the money for the benefit of the claimant."

 

I do know of someone with money in a trust fund of sorts, what it is I don't know, but they still get means tested benefits like income support. They can access it too but would then have to declare it to Dhss. And lose money. This is all legal. Any idea what trust this might be as a friend of mine had a solicitor who was sorting the same deal out for him. Lost touch with both friends so dont know where to start.

 

I'm afraid I don't know the details of how to do it - a solicitor would indeed be the best way forward to explain these possibilities, as it's a more specialised area than we on this forum can really deal with. It would need proper professional legal advice. The idea hadn't even really occurred to me until an old school friend, who is now a solicitor herself, set up a business in Scotland offering those sorts of services. (I mention that only in passing: I'm not her advertising agency and in any case she's on a maternity break :) )

 

But it can be done in some circumstances.

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

You may find some guidance here in the following links

 

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1987/1967/made

 

 

Notional income

 

42.—(1) A claimant shall be treated as possessing income of which he has deprived himself for the purpose of securing entitlement to income support or increasing the amount of that benefit.

 

(2) Except in the case of—

 

(a)a discretionary trust;

(b)a trust derived from a payment made in consequence of a personal injury;

©unemployment benefit under the Social Security Act which may be payable to a claimant who is not required to be available for employment; or

(d)an increase of child benefit payable to a claimant under regulation 2(2) of the Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Regulations 1976(76) (rates of child benefit),

 

 

 

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/avoiding-the-benefits-trap-the-award-of-settlement-money-in-personal-injury-cases-may-mean-loss-of-your-clients-entitlement-to-benefits/19830.fullarticle

 

Regards

 

Andy

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...