Truly shocked by Tory bank trials for benefit claimants.

I noticed that it did not specify which form of ESA.

You can have a million to the bank and still qualify for contribution based ESA.

The article specifically mentions ESA is included.

What a daft thing to say. Having savings is sensible and a necessity if you can manage it.

I'd like to see the actual data the article is based on.

This.

There are several benefits which aren't affected by capital. Contribution based ESA. PIP/DLA/AA. Carer's Allowance.

But don't let that get in the way of a good froth.

The article doesn't tell us anything about fraud.

The article says some people have balances.

You can have a balance and be eligible, as some things are exempt for very good reason.

The article is deliberately written to get those who don't understand the system feeling angry - don't let yourself be duped by this kind of thing.

100%

The policy is very shortsighted in relation to independent living. Thanks to a sole proprietor/joint mortgage my son 'owns' his own home and is secure.

He has never worked, is the wrong fit for supported living but can't live independently. But he can't have sufficient savings in his name to maintain his home without this impacting on benefit allowance.

If he were in insecure rented property this would be funded and he would have no maintenance costs. But this would destroy his mental health.

We are considering a vulnerable person trust when parents are no longer around.

This is the reality of the issues faced for real people.

It would be nice if the outraged taxpayer concerned themselves with real issues relating to inequality rather than frothing at the mouth a la Pavlov's dogs.

Nice but not necessary. People are ignorant of what doesn't affect them. I'm not holding my breath. I'm not waiting for a saviour. We find a way because we have to.

I wish you the strength to deal with the advertises you may encounter in your life and the added strength to deal with those who blame you for encountering those adversities.

Again, another post that shows you don't understand the rules of the system you are moaning about.

It is so frustrating 'debating' these matters with people who haven't the first clue what the rules are or why they are the way they are.

You clearly don't understand the rules on pension credit, and you don't understand what capital exceptions are made for very good reasons for other benefits claimants.

You clearly do not know much about the benefits system in this country @FaeryRing

Read up on pension credit, read up on why it is organised that way, before you start moaning.

You will be a pensioner yourself one day, the saftey met will be there for you too.

Rules are different for pensioners than those in work for really very obvious reasons.

What a ridiculous comment. This thread is about welfare abuse, nothing to do with rich donors.

I agree. Having savings is a luxury not a necessity

Good. I hope they crack down on piss takers from all classes and backgrounds. Benefits claimants aren’t an exception to that. People work hard for their money and are expected to hand it over to people with 50k sat in the bank? Or more? I don’t think so

Agree completely @NDmumoftwo !
However I think things have become blurred, partly because so many people who have full-time jobs also need to claim benefits.
As I understand it they need to claim benefits in large part because wages are too low relative to housing costs.

A friend of mine got asked by the DWP to explain why she'd had a large amount of money in her account and which then had disappeared

Yes, she and her (recently disabled) dh had sold a house and had moved North and bought a new one that was lot cheaper, so they could be mortgage free (as her dh was never going to be able to work again ), so this was the short time the money had been in her bank account.

So no fraud, because they were doing their best not to be a burden on the state.

Fortunately her reason was accepted - but it's exactly the sort of finer detail that is needed in "reports" about raw statistics like this

Err yes, that's what benefits are there for. Those in a precarious situation. Not those who have a nice fat cash buffer and earn low income.

The savings limits have been £6k & 16k for years, they have never increased in line with benefit increases, what £6k was worth when the limit was introduced is probably at least £8k now. Just like the earnings limit for carers allowance, they should be increased to reflect today's value.

There is a reason the lottery is called a poor tax

of Course she could. It’s what she’s done her entire life.
so what happened was her universal credit got stopped when she declared it
she spent a few months living off that excess until she got down below the 16k then had to restart her claim which took more time. By which point the inheritance had gone lower.

just seems an incredibly short term way of looking at something to me for what was ultimately not a huge amount

What's proposed now is new.

DWP will, in future, be able compel the banks to watch for and disclose to them certain types of activity including large sums, spending abroad etc. where people are claiming benefits.

They've always done this, it's nothing new.

Given we lose more money to it than non payment of private school VAT, non doms and dodgy covid contracts..? Shall we leave all them alone as well?

I couldn't give even the tiniest shit about benefit fraud, given the grand scheme of things.

It is, without doubt, unworkable. So is stopping it being spent on alcohol or tobacco.

Wealthy people use their wealth to hide and protect their wealth.
They are not cleaner or more honest they just have a greater ability to cover things up!