To think actually, this IS about benefits?

(100 Posts)
Apprenticefan Thu 29-Nov-12 21:05:15

I feel desperately sorry for this woman over the awful loss of her son, but although she maintains that all this isn't about benefits, I can't help but feel it is. AIBU.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2240349/Mother-youngest-British-soldier-killed-Afghanistan-gone-hunger-strike-benefits-axed-death.html

Morph2 Thu 29-Nov-12 21:32:46

i don't think she's helping her younger two by going on hunger strike

McChristmasPants2012 Thu 29-Nov-12 21:39:04

if it was me I would put all the money into a trust fund for the 2 DC and then put in a new claim < don't know if that is legal>

AboutThyme Thu 29-Nov-12 21:51:04

Seems like a horrible situation but I can't see how the woman is helping her younger children by doing something like this. Unless it is just a way of getting into the papers and drawing attention to the situation. Which I am not saying is right or wrong. Just saying it. <sits on fence>

OpheliaPayneAgain Thu 29-Nov-12 21:59:27

His family received a £68,000 death-in-service (DIS) pay-out, combined with a £150,000 PAX insurance payout.

William's wish that his death-in-service payout would be used as a trust fund for his younger brothers

He should have made a will

She want's to keep benefit payouts.

Call me harsh but she could use that money to retrain, ultimately get a job, and secure her childrens futures instead of using her dead son to do so.

She has been threatened with eviction from her three-bedroom home over rent arrears and warned she faces bailiffs for non-payment of council tax.

She's got 218K in the bank so as not to be in arrears.

I'm sorry for her loss, but she has the money to pay - if she's taking the moral high ground that the money is to secure the siblings future, she should look to their immediate future and provide a secure home.

thekidsrule Thu 29-Nov-12 22:01:22

read this earlier

very sorry that she lost her son but REALLY the woman sounds greedy and she has plenty of money to bring her other sons up,her deceased son wanted the money to go to his siblings and there upbringing so use it woman

its more than most and what good is she to her living children if she dies through the strike

i dont think she is getting the reaction she thought by the response ive read elsewhere

pure greed,

OpheliaPayneAgain Thu 29-Nov-12 22:07:53

Today the single mother vowed she would continue to refuse solid food until the Government 'started a dialogue' with her about the issue. Lucy, said: 'Right now I am feeling hungry and tired. 'But I am doing it to give my sons the future their big brother wanted for them and for other military families in my position. The boys don’t know what’s going on as they are staying with their grandparents. 'I hope it doesn’t come to it but whether I die or not is in the government’s hands.

Translation: I CBA to look after the kids I have living, and have palmed them off on grand parents, I'm an attention seeker, so much so, I don;t care if I get ill/die because the state will pick up the bill, probably having driven my parents into the ground through my selfish need for attention

Celticlassie Thu 29-Nov-12 22:07:55

It's awful what happened to that young soldier, but benefits are supposed to be to help you when you couldn't manage otherwise. She can get by, and pay for her children, by using the money she inherited, so shouldn't get benefits. It's as simple as that.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 22:20:10

Of course it's about benefits. The woman is selfish and entitled, I honestly don't understand what planet she is on. Does she seriously think that her one woman hunger strike/toddler tantrum is going to get the government to change the laws surrounding benefits just for her? Or can we all just throw a hissy fit and expect Westminster to do as we demand?

Silly woman.

ThatDudeSanta Thu 29-Nov-12 22:25:33

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MsElleTow Thu 29-Nov-12 22:28:12

My DH is in the Forces. We have got Life Insurance that will pay out should he die in Service, so I can continue to bring up my DC without needing benefits.

My DS1 wants to join the Army. We shall be advising him to take out a life insurance policy and to make a will as soon as possible, so any money that gets left, should he die, goes where he wants it too.

This lady is being very, very silly. I honestly do not know why she thinks the State should continue to support her, when she has in excess of £200k. I don't like it, that some people believe that members of the Armed Forces should be exempt from laws that govern other people because of the job they do. I feel dreadfully sorry for her, but the rules can not and should not be changed for one case.

ThatDudeSanta Thu 29-Nov-12 22:30:53

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

She's disabled and can't work.

What she is saying is that she has to spend the money her son leaves her on living until she is below the 16k threshold and she can claim benefits again - instead of carrying out the expressed will of her son (because he only said it to her and didn't write a will).

ThisIsMummyPig Thu 29-Nov-12 22:35:02

What Ophelia said. She needs to pull herself togther and look after her son's who have just been bereaved.

Morloth Thu 29-Nov-12 22:35:16

I don't really understand hunger strikes.

'Today the single mother vowed she would continue to refuse solid food until the Government 'started a dialogue' with her about the issue.'

Um, OK? Why should anyone give a fuck as to what she is choosing to eat (or not?).

She has 200,000 quid, how she came into it is awful but she has it, she now has the means to make a big difference to her and her children's future.

McChristmasPants2012 Thu 29-Nov-12 22:41:41

slightly OT, but can they force her to eat like they can do for Anorexia patients

AmberLeaf Thu 29-Nov-12 22:43:21

What Laurie said.

The fact she is disabled and can't work makes this different IMO

I get the point others are making, but if she was able bodied and could work, she and her sons would get the full benefit of this payout.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 22:43:51

But she is eating. She just isn't eating solid food. She can live fine on soup and milkshake.

Her son will have been spoken to about making a will anyway, they tend to make you think about these things when they send you off to a war zone.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 22:45:04

It makes no difference whatsoever that she is disabled! She will still get her DLA, the same as every other rich person with a disability will get.

cumfy Thu 29-Nov-12 22:53:11

I think she needs proper counselling to deal with her grief.

Does anyone really believe this 18 yo soldier wanted the insurance to go specifically into a trust fund ?

AmberLeaf Thu 29-Nov-12 22:55:08

It does make a difference though doesn't it?

Clearly.

Softlysoftly Thu 29-Nov-12 22:59:22

I actually get why she doesn't want her day to day life paid for by her dead sons money, that would feel awful for every penny you spent.

However it's also not right that with the money there she should be entitled to benefits.

The best solution would be to move x% of the money into trust for the boys £50k each would sort them a good education and deposit on their first home and car. Then use the remainder of the money to raise them, feed them, clothe them etc. what is that if not securing their future as per his wishes?

Then for any of her personal needs outside basic survival to be there for her sons she can use her CTC and CB money.

What the worst solution would be is being totally emotional and selfishly disrupting her already bereaved DSs lives further whether that is in personal grief or to fight a cause.

MammaTJ Thu 29-Nov-12 23:02:06

I read this this morning in our local paper. Sh needs a slap, some counselling and to put her sons needs first. Her older son wanted to help his younger brothers, not have their mum starve herself to death in the hope of keeping her benefits and the money for the younger boys.

I do see her point, in that it was meant to be for the boys, but she cannot hope to keep that and benefits as well.

I know what she wanted was to put the money in trust for them and keep the benefits, but what she could do is buy a house and still claim benefits.

As her older son left the money to her, she cannto expect people to go against that.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 23:03:26

It's not at all clear to me. I can't see how it makes any difference at all.

What if she wasn't disabled but was working for a low wage and was on the breadline? No doubt in that situation she would use the money to enhance hers and her children's lives, so why should it be any different just because she's on benefits. Her disability payment will be the same regardless.

OpheliaPayneAgain Thu 29-Nov-12 23:03:36

She's disabled and can't work.

Stephen Hawkin manages a rather large contribution to science and society.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 23:05:33

If her son wanted the money to go to his brothers, he should have said that when he made his will. He would have been given the opportunity to, but he didn't. He left it to his Mum, so it's hers. The benefit system cannot be rewritten because of some selfish woman who can still spend the money on her children.

MsElleTow Thu 29-Nov-12 23:06:28

I'm disabled and can't work. We have gone to great lengths to protect ourselves, so should DH get killed I would be able to being up my DC without turning to benefits.

The article doesn't actually say she can't work. It says she claims disability allowance for Hypermobilitl Syndrome. She might be able to work in some jobs, TBH. The way DLA is going there may be a chance she will have to.

Seriously, you can not expect to get over £200k and still receive means tested benefits!

Morloth Thu 29-Nov-12 23:06:56

Wills people, they are very important if you want some control over what happens after you are gone.

Ophelia that isn't a very fair comparison though is it?

I am pretty sure that if for instance I had Stephen Hawkin's disabilities I wouldn't be contributing quite as much as he does, because I ain't that smart.

BartletForTeamGB Thu 29-Nov-12 23:10:57

Based on friends who have gone to Afghanistan and Iraq with the Armed Forces, I thought they all had to write their wills before they left so there must have been a will written (hopefully). You write your will and your "in case I am dead" letter.

I have every sympathy for her loss but not for her case.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 29-Nov-12 23:15:58

Ophelia That's pretty horrible. Not everyone who is disabled has the brains to be able to work like him.

The normal people with disabilities, extremely painful disabilities at that will have a bit more of a problem sustaining working hours and actually being able to contribute every time they would need to.

EverybodysSnowyEyed Thu 29-Nov-12 23:18:14

I don't understand the £300. Does that mean she gets £15,600 a year in benefits above her DLA? So if she were to have to dip into the capital she would have enough for 13 years. Plus a few if invested wisely. By which point her sons will be at work/FE.

I can see that this leads to the capital not actually adding anything to their lives. Although at the point they turn 16 or 18 she could give them a lump sum. But without the will there really can't be another way.

However, for those two boys I can see no good outcome to what their mother is doing. I hope they are ok.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 23:19:56

Plenty of 'normal people with disabilities' work too you know. Not every disability makes working impossible!

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 29-Nov-12 23:22:05

Did I say that? Didn't mean it to come across like that, obviously I didn't mean every person with a disability.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 23:25:38

Fair enough, I didn't mean to completely jump all over you!

I'm just not seeing how the disability makes any difference at all in this case.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 29-Nov-12 23:30:26

It's fine, I'm tired and probably not writing very clearly.

Tbh, I think given that her Son didn't make a will when he had thought about it enough to discuss with her, then she should be using the money instead of doing what she is doing.

As someone else has said, she could be putting away a large sum for each of them and using the rest to bring them up and for day to day living.

I only said what I did as I don't believe saying that she should re-train or/and get a job is really looking at the situation clearly. If she can't work, she can't work.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 23:37:38

I agree that if she can't work then she can't work, but there are many disabled people that can't work who don't qualify for means tested benefits. Either because their spouse earns too much, they got compensation for whatever it is that made them disabled, they come from a rich family, they got an insurance payout on diagnosis of a progressive illness that results in disability, they earned enough to have assets before they became disabled, etc etc. There is no reason that this woman should be treated any differently to them.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 29-Nov-12 23:39:23

I don't believe she should be treated any different at all.

I thought CTC were means tested though?

Viperidae Thu 29-Nov-12 23:40:44

I was under the impression that army personnel made wills before going to warzones. I do wonder if this was really his wishes or if this is the best argument she can come up with to try to justify her wishes to keep the money and the benefits.

I think she is a very greedy woman who is letting all her sons down by this behaviour

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 23:44:10

CTCs are means tested, so as someone with hundreds of thousands in the bank, she isn't entitled to them. She would still be entitled to her DLA though.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 29-Nov-12 23:47:35

It says she gets CTC though? confused

lisad123 Thu 29-Nov-12 23:50:56

Buy a house with the money, there's the investment in her sons future. Then she will get benifits back.
She's stupid an clearly it is about the money.
And yes not every disabled person is incapable of Woking, but would assume from what is written that she can't/doesn't work.
DLA is not means tested so she would still get that.

Viviennemary Thu 29-Nov-12 23:51:34

As somebody else said the sensible solution would be to buy a house and then she would still be entitled to benefits. She can't keep the money and have the benefits under the present rules.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Thu 29-Nov-12 23:51:52

You're right it does! I hadn't noticed that, it makes it even worse! She's doing all this because she won't get her free rent and free council tax! Selfish cow!

lisad123 Thu 29-Nov-12 23:52:19

Yes CTC is means tested but there is a certain rate of ctc that is given if a child is disabled, no matter what is earned. Not sure it's same for adult but think they still get something.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 29-Nov-12 23:55:01

Outraged I don't know what you mean. Sorry, really quite tired.

Lisa I don't think you do, I don't get any extra in CTC.

lisad123 Thu 29-Nov-12 23:55:39

If she gets Hrc she could get £4k in ctc even with the money in the bank

lisad123 Thu 29-Nov-12 23:56:18
SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Thu 29-Nov-12 23:58:46

Ah right okay, fair enough.

SchroSawMummyRidingSantaClaus Fri 30-Nov-12 00:00:35

Under the CTC section it only mentions disabled child elements, not adults?

mylittlestpie Fri 30-Nov-12 01:18:56

The capital wouldn't count for tax credit purposes, as savings are assessed differently for tax credits than other benefits. It's just the income from the interest on savings that count with tax credits, so she's still allowed to get them provided the interest she receives on it doesn't bring her over the tax credit income threshold. (In the near future this will change when tax credits are merged into Universal Credit, so capital will make a difference).

There is actually precedent for her case - some types of payouts aren't regarded as capital by the DWP for the purposes of income-related benefits (see here). For example, payouts to London bombing victims, payments from the Skipton fund (if you were infected with Hep C through NHS transfusions), payments made by the UK govt to Japanese POWs and some WWII payouts. So it's not unreasonable for her to argue that this should/could fall into a similar category.

It's a real shame for her, and the will should of course have been written into trust. But she certainly can afford to pay for her other children's living costs with the payout. I doubt the hunger strike will make a difference though, especially now there are major changes to the benefits system.

sashh Fri 30-Nov-12 01:55:17

It's only means tested benefits she can't claim. So she will still get either incapacity benefit or ESA, depending on whether she has been switched yet. And she will also get DLA.

DLA has two rates for mobiity and three for care, by the amount she is getting it looks like she only gets one payment, possibly the lower mobility part.

Actually I'm sure she should get more than £140 a week as she also gets child benefit. Not that she needs it if her sons are not living with her.

The best soloution?

Probably to buy a house or two, one for each boy. Live in one, rent the other out and live on the rent from the other. Write a will leaving the houses to the boys, or even put them in the boys names now with a clause that she can live there for X years.

And yes I did check house prices in the area.

w.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/property/bredenbury/bredenbury/hr7-4tf/?include_retirement_homes=true&include_shared_ownership=true&new_homes=include&price_max=150000&q=Bredenbury%2C Bromyard HR7&radius=15&results_sort=newest_listings&search_source=refine

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 07:20:11

The simple fact is that if you have 200k in the bank you don't qualify for means tested benefits.

My brother died in afganistan and his second tour. Before his first the were spoken to about wills and the impact of their death and payouts on their family.

He was spoken to again before his second tour. Of this man wanted the money in trust funds he had more than ample opportunity to do it, correctly.

She can use the money to bring up the sons. However she has chosen to send them off to live with their grandparents and not bring them up at all.

And as for the bit where she says it will be the governments fault if she dies. No it won't, it will be her fault that her sons are having to deal with the death of their brother and mother.

I think her attitude stinks because she is not putting the children first.

manticlimactic Fri 30-Nov-12 07:29:06

Hang on, her children don't even live with her? Is this a permanent thing?

I saw her on Daybreak yesterday and couldn't muster any sympathy regarding her benefit cut to be honest.

MammaTJ Fri 30-Nov-12 07:34:59

The children were sent to live elsewhere so they don't witness what she is foing to herself.

HappyMummyOfOne Fri 30-Nov-12 07:36:32

What an awful story. So she has sent her children else where to live and not eating all so that she can keep the money in the bank. Poor poor children.

stillorsparkling Fri 30-Nov-12 07:37:14

I have hypermibillity syndrome (v. mild) I know one other who has it pretty severely. As we are work colleagues I can confirm that it does not preclude having a job.

MammaTJ Fri 30-Nov-12 07:37:31

doing*

Dawndonna Fri 30-Nov-12 07:38:55

Okay, anybody who knows me knows which side I'm usually on. This however is wrong. She could be using the money for the siblings. Having a bit of a buffer offers different opportunities to those available when there is no buffer.

Ophelia
Unfair on my philosophy lecturer husband who is so disabled that there are days when he is barely coherent, let alone being able to move, drink, eat etc. There are people who for whatever reason are so disabled that they are unable to work. You sound as though you work for ATOS.

Where is the father of these kids in all of this?

Seems terribly sad but as everyone has said he had ample opportunity to sort out his will before going on tour.

And no she would not be forcefed, would be huge problem getting her diagnosed as not mentally competent which is what we have to do to insert NG tubes.

She just sounds awfully selfish, with a huge sense of entitlement.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 07:44:17

The children were sent to live elsewhere so they don't witness what she is foing to herself

So the kids won't see the papers? Won't know anyone who has seen it? she is eating liquid food.

The point is that her kids should be with her. Because she shouldn't be doing this in the first place.

Right now her poor kids have lost their brother and had to love to their GPs. Even though she could look after them, but is choosing not to.

Its her choice to do this and put her kids through this.

I sympathise with wants happened. I have been there when I lost my brother. But what she is doing to her kids is wrong.

TroublesomeEx Fri 30-Nov-12 10:29:59

So she quite likes the idea of being rich (which £200k in the bank would make her imo) but also living off the state too.

Nice.

Sounds like she's been rubbing her hands at how well off she's going to be only now she's finding that, just like everyone else, that money is intended to be used for her/the family to live on and not as a bonus nest egg.

mercibucket Fri 30-Nov-12 10:50:38

We're all full of sympathy on this thread I see this morning

If my son had been killed in action, I'd also have wanted that money to go towards something concrete, not be slowly frittered away on day-to-day living expenses that would have been covered by the state if my son had not died serving his country. It's a shame these payments are not exempt, as other payments can be. It's also of course a shame her son didn't make a proper will. Isn't it possible to vary a will after death if you, the person inheriting, agree to it? Did he not make a will at all and it just went to the next of kin?

I'd have thought with a good lawyer there was a pretty easy way round this eg buying a house as suggested, setting up trust funds. But she sounds like this has all got on top of her and it is irrational grief talking

I don't see why we can't make death-in-service payments for members of the forces who die in our name, exempt as sources of income for benefits purposes. I see money wasted in worse ways by our government, like sending young people off to die on wars fought on dubious legal grounds, for instance

OwlLady Fri 30-Nov-12 10:59:16

I am laughing now. I wonder whether Stephen Hawkings knowsthat he is brought into any discussion about disabled people working whether it be down the pub, online or whatever.

I feel dreadfully sad for the lady, her son looked lovely sad and it's tragic. I do think she should just buy a house with the money though

GreenEggsAndNichts Fri 30-Nov-12 11:05:07

Insurance payouts for bereaved families are often with the idea that day-to-day living is expensive and to help with that whilst the family recovers.

The very idea that she thinks she can keep 200k AND live off the taxpayer just shocks me. And of course, she'll be able to, if she buys a couple of houses with the money. shock

I'm sorry for those who think the reason for her receiving the money should have any bearing on whether or not she receives benefits, but I don't agree. Benefits are there to help people who need them, and someone with 200k in the bank does not need money from the state. If I had a massive inheritance from my family, I'd also not expect more money from the state.

I'm very sorry she lost her son. sad

traipsingalong Fri 30-Nov-12 11:17:50

I'm not sure that her buying a house will automatically mean she'll get her benefits back - they are likely to call it "willful depreciation of capital" or something - meaning that she's deliberately spent the money in order to claim benefits. This happened to a friend of mine who inherited 20K and used it to pay off part of her mortgage.

DesperatelySeekingSedatives Fri 30-Nov-12 11:26:44

She needs help. Counselling if she hasnt had any. She isnt right in the head imo. No one in the goverment are going to "start a dialogue" or whatever with someone behaving like a cranky 5 year old.

She's about to be evicted for not paying her rent. She has the money to. She just doesnt want to. Her DC she has now will then be homeless. How is THAT in their best interests?! If she doesn't pay her council tax she could end up going to prison for it. Her children wont have their mum for a while. A bit like now actually hmm

FFS they've lost their big brother. They need their mum to be a mum to them. It might seem unfair but her son didn't make a will to say he wanted the brothers to have the money. It's sad he died, ofcourse it is, but the only person to blame for that money going to his mum and not into a trust for the 2 brothers is him.

LtEveDallas Fri 30-Nov-12 11:31:49

He will have made a will. He had to before he went. He wouldn't have been able to deploy without one.

All soldiers go through what we call an MCCP in the couple of weeks before they deploy and Wills are one of the things that are checked (as are insurances etc).

We only have her word for it that he wanted money to go to his brothers. Forces Will forms are very easy to understand, and ask the right questions. Regts also have financial briefs from independent financial advisors every year, but of course he may not have attended.

I am afraid I have little sympathy for her now. I have HUGE amounts of sympathy for her other children who are now not only suffering from the death of their brother, but may have to lose mum too.

(although if she still has milkshakes, water and soups she isn't going to die any time soon - so its probably all a publicity stunt)

As an aside, and without having read the article, I thought when soldiers went to the front line they all made wills as part of the preparation for going, along with writing "to be opened in the event of..." letters and so forth.

So he will have made a will, and the fact that it doesn't reflect what she claims were his wishes is hardly the government's fault.

FrillyMilly Fri 30-Nov-12 11:44:07

She should buy a small house which would mean she doesn't need housing benefit. Council tax for a single adult in a small house isn't huge. Then put what is left over (possibly £100k depending on where she lives) in trust for the two sons. The house would also most likely increase in value during her lifetime and she could pass it on to her sons when she dies. Maybe her dead son wanted her to be financially secure, own her own house and not survive on benefits. I know that's what I would want if it was my mother.

LtEveDallas Fri 30-Nov-12 11:48:30

In THIS report it says she has already spent half the money she received. That's an awful lot of cash in 3 years shock

DesperatelySeekingSedatives Fri 30-Nov-12 12:17:26

Eh? So he made a will? Then what's the problem? Unless ofcourse he made it saying his mother was to get the lot (nothing wrong with that imo).

This all sounds like an ill thought out publicity stunt and I doubt many people have much sympathy. I dont. I'm sorry her son has died but really her boys who are still alive need their mum to be a mum and stop messing around and acting like a tantrumming toddler.

spotsdots Fri 30-Nov-12 12:19:18

I feel sorry for her loss of a child but I don't see how starving will help the other children.

Can't the money be transfered into the younger children's trust fund? Or as suggested buy a property or invest into some scheme that will bring in more income.

She needs serious counselling and guidance about money investments.

WhenSheWasBadSheWasHopeful Fri 30-Nov-12 12:25:47

I don't got the maths in this she has lost £300 a week in benefits since her son died but has spent half of the £218,000in 3 years on day to day expenses?

£100,000 spent over 3 years is over £2700 a week. I don't understand how you can spend £2700 a week on basics.

threesocksmorgan Fri 30-Nov-12 12:30:00

I don't get this.
she has money, she is over the amount you can have and claim benefits.
so she can't claim.
that is how it works.

JuliaScurr Fri 30-Nov-12 12:33:45

It is unfair that children of disabled parents are worse off than kids of able bodied. Disabled people's houses get sold to pay for social care in private sector old people's homes - so they don't inherit sad

likewise if she paid a mortgage out of a wage instead of rent out of benefits because she can't work, the bequest would go to the kids. Now it will go in rent.

threesocksmorgan Fri 30-Nov-12 12:41:57

but that happens to lots of people when their parents get older, not just disabled parents.

OutragedAtThePriceOfFreddos Fri 30-Nov-12 12:43:29

Julia, anyone who needs residential care has to sell their home to pay for care, not just disabled people. It happens to many many elderly people who were able to work until retirement age and beyond.

The bequest wasn't left to the children, it was left to her. She is still entitled to the be fonts she receives because of her disability, she just isn't entitled to the means tested ones. The same as any other disabled or non disabled people with hundreds of thousands of pounds.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 12:50:20

Julia that is not applicable to only disabled families. I don't really get your point or what has to do with this case.

I knew they were advised to have a will as My dbro had one after being spoken to about it. I didn't realise he had to, as pp has said.

If it is true that you MUST have a will to be deployed, then I am guessing that it was not intention for the money to go to his brothers as she has stated. She is saying that to cause outrage and publicity.

I would bet his intention for this money was to be used to bring them up, not actually go to them. which is why he left it to his mum.

I also don't get how se has spent to so much in a short space on 'day to day' living.

bradywasmyfavouriteking Fri 30-Nov-12 12:51:59

I also disagree with merci.

No one can sit on 200k and still receive benefits, regardless of how they have come by it.

The money is to help with day to day expenses.

Surely using the money to help bring up her children is helping them for their future?

If she bought a house she could gift it/sell it when they are older.

I have zero sympathy with her. Does she really think this is what her son would have wanted?

Floggingmolly Fri 30-Nov-12 13:00:35

Of course it's about benefits. The benefit system was not designed to enable us to build nest eggs to secure our children's futures; while the tax payers funded our day to day living expenses.
I can see her point about wanting the money kept intact for her surviving sons, but not her refusal to see she must earn her own salary in order to make that happen.

FivesAndNorks Fri 30-Nov-12 13:03:50

I feel very sorry for her but I very much doubt this situation reflects her DS's wishes for his brothers

Seabright Fri 30-Nov-12 13:20:12

In addition to all the checks made in the services regarding proper written wills, service people on active service are permitted to make oral wills, they are the only group allowed to do so. Which means he could have told someone else his wishes and that would have been allowed too.

I know grief makes people act in strange and awful ways, but he died in 2009. She needs councelling (sp - sorry) and to move on

EverybodysSnowyEyed Fri 30-Nov-12 13:31:59

How on earth has she managed to spend half the money in such a short period?

And it says he is drinking protein shakes?

I think she needs some serious help and her mp and the newspapers are not acting in her interests.

MsElleTow Fri 30-Nov-12 14:48:49

I disagree with Merci. Like I have said earlier on in the thread, my husband is in the Forces and I am disabled. If he dies, I would receive more than £218k because we have several policies. I would not dream of claiming benefits.

I don't think that families of service people who are bereaved should be exempt from the benefits laws. Where on earth would we draw the line? DH is going to the Falklands, if he has an accident there would that be ok? If so, why can't the rules be bent for someone who might receive an insurance pay out because their loved one was killed building a school, or by a drink driver? It's not feasible.

The article LtEve linked to, said her DS wanted the money to be used for the upbringing of his brothers. Well surely, the day-day expenses of housing, food, school trips, clothing etc are associated with their upbringing? I think she has been really ill-advised in going to the press, and I don't think she is going to get much symapthy!

think that certain pay outs should be disregarded for purposes of benefits such as death in service of soldiers, police, fire personnel, the way some payouts have been exempt for instance 7/7 etc.

Or maybe it should be structured where there isn't a cliff edge scenario, so any payouts above a specific amount would reduce the benefit proportionately.

I think it's a matter of principle here.

splashymcsplash Fri 30-Nov-12 15:08:20

My initial reaction to reading this was that the woman is nuts. As a mother her children should be her first responsibility.

Thinking a bit more I think its likely thst she has mental health problems and is having difficulty dealing with her grief.

She could buy a house with the money and then claim benefits, and the house could act as a nest egg for the children, so its really a non issue.

Alternatively she could use the money to train and get a good job. If she was determined enough there would likely be lots of jobs she could carry out, and the article does say that she does not receive dla so clearly does not meet their qualifying criteria.

Theicingontop Fri 30-Nov-12 15:13:55

Why is she renting when she can buy a bloody house to live in? Buying property to pass on to her sons is looking after their future!

I wonder if anyone has suggested this to her.

MoomieAndFreddie Fri 30-Nov-12 18:10:53

hmm i was a bit hmm when i read about this - surely she could buy a house outright with the money? and then she would still get income support and tax credits?

to hunger strike is ridiculous and v unfair on her other little dcs sad

FrillyMilly Fri 30-Nov-12 18:59:50

I think there is a difference between those who choose to enter the forces and public services and those that are killed in terrorist attacks. Where do we draw the line? Why is one inheritance allowed and one not? If you have the means to support your self financially then you are not entitled to means tested benefits. It's the way our society works and whilst I am sorry for her loss she cannot opt out of the system when it doesn't work in her favour.

cumfy Fri 30-Nov-12 19:15:36

Why is she renting when she can buy a bloody house to live in?

This would be classed as "intentional deprivation of capital" for the purposes of benefits, now and in the future and she effectively would be unable to claim means tested benefits.

OTOH I'd be really curious to know what would happen if she bought somewhere for say £100-120k then tried claiming benefits in 4 or 5 years.

thekidsrule Fri 30-Nov-12 19:54:22

I'm not sure that her buying a house will automatically mean she'll get her benefits back - they are likely to call it "willful depreciation of capital" or something - meaning that she's deliberately spent the money in order to claim benefits. This happened to a friend of mine who inherited 20K and used it to pay off part of her mortgage.

well i recieved a death benefit (endownment) and paid of my morgage and was on income support/ctc/cb/ctb etc at the time,i notified them about it paid morgage of,debts sent them all paperwork etc,then carried on claiming as before

the sum was for £60,000 so well over the £16 savings/entilement

so in my case they were fine with it

Viviennemary Fri 30-Nov-12 21:30:46

I don't think it would be regarded as deprivation of capital. It might be in a scenario where somebody won say £2 million on the lottery bought a house with all the money and then claimed benefits. Because they could have bought a much cheaper house that would have been enough for their needs. The same as buying a car wouldn't be deprivation of capital if you needed a car but buying a fancy sports car costing tens of thousands would be.

Dawndonna Fri 30-Nov-12 22:53:48

The deprivation of capital is extraordinarily unclear. So unclear in fact that even CPAG are unable to give definitive answers. Some people have been penalised for clearing mortgages, which in fact have been proven to save the DWP money in the long term, whilst others have not. It's down to the decision maker on the day. You have to hope they haven't had a bad night!

Isabeller Fri 30-Nov-12 22:58:48

Surely it's about grief.

I can remember being completely irrational when grief stricken, I hope those around her help her find a dignified and supported way out.

diaimchlo Fri 30-Nov-12 23:49:12

She cannot put the money into a trust fund for her children or buy a house as this would be considered as disposing of the money in order to bring her under the £16k threshold by the DWP.

She will be expected to live off it for quite a few years and if she claims benefits again in the future she would have to produce receipts and statements to prove the money had been spent on living needs....

TraceyTrickster Sat 01-Dec-12 23:37:51

Is she claiming that if her son had survived, he would have stayed at home and supported his younger brothers to adulthood?

Because that is what she is expecting to happen with the payout.

FrillyMilly Sun 02-Dec-12 08:35:12

She is complaining because she lost her housing and council tax benefit of £300 per week. She wouldn't need housing benefit if she bought a house. Surely council tax on a 2/3bed house for a single person even down south can't be that much so her rent must be most of the £1200 a month she is losing out on.

scrablet Sun 02-Dec-12 09:14:25

Agree totally with Isabellar.
This woman lost her son in horrific circumstances and has not dealt with it.
The money is just a hook to hang it on.
She needs real grief management help, all this is just a diversion.
Poor man, poor woman and poor children.
I hope someone can help.

TroublesomeEx Sun 02-Dec-12 09:34:23

She cannot put the money into a trust fund for her children or buy a house as this would be considered as disposing of the money in order to bring her under the £16k threshold by the DWP.

Exactly, although I rather suspect that this was her intention and that she has been reassured by other people that this will be ok and an acceptable thing to do and what everyone does. Hence her public outrage.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now