Advanced search

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.

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.

PurpleCrutches Fri 30-Nov-12 12:59:13

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!

ilovemydogandMrObama Fri 30-Nov-12 15:06:18

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