AIBU to think that the inlaws are hypocrites??

[Pinkforever]

Inlaws are very much daily mail reader stereotypes-crow on and about benefit scroungers,all immigrants are out to blow us up etc. Whinge constantly about being "poor" pensioners even though they own 2 houses,2 cars and have thousands in the bank.

Mil had an accident last year that has effected her mobility. She is telling all and sundry that she is now disabled and will be entiled to "all sorts"

There latest plan is to sell their mortage free home,pocket the money and then tell the council to rehouse them.

I know they want to do this so that they can then claim that they really are "poor" pensioners and claim benefits which quite honestly they dont need.

AIBU to think this is in the first instance very hypocritical and in the second-pretty fucking unrealistic? my knowledge of how council housing works is not uptodate but I thought you basically had to accept whatever dump they offer you?_mil refutes this btw-plus surely the benefits agency will enquire about what their financial situation is before they decide on benefits??...

I just don't see the worst in pensioners who have said they want to spend their money and ask for a council house.

What OP says their plan is doesn't neccesarily mean that they are planning to hide the fact that they have made money from a house sale. Lots of people in that generation believe that the government should give them what they need when they need it, because that was the idea in their day.

I realise they could well be trying to pull a fast one, but they could also just be like my Granny (who already lives in council accommodation and is currently having a thing built for the mobility scooter she wants) who thinks that if she needs something then she should get it because that's what taxes are for. She would be exactly the same if she'd had an accident that affected her mobility, but it's not because she's trying to con anyone, she's the most generous person you could know. It sounds to me like the OPs in laws have the same sort of view.

They're going to sell TWO homes and you think they're going to spend the money??? What do you spend that sort of money on? She said they want to claim to be "poor pensioners" they're far from poor!

Even if they do manage to spend it all, the council will still call it intentionally homeless and expect them to find somewhere with family. It's a little different when you're already their responsibility to ask for somewhere else to putting yourselves on the street and expecting them to do something about it. If you own two homes and neither are good enough for your disability then move or adapt one. Sell one if you can't afford to.

Yes, I get that and I agree with you. I just think that someone that thinks differently isn't neccesarily out to con anyone, they can genuinely believe they are entitled.

dont want to be accused of drip feeding but more info-the 2nd home is abroad.they have already said that if they sell it will put it in dh and bils names so government doesnt get it. they could easily afford to sell both homes and get a bungelow or adapted home.i dont see why the council should house them when they are not in genuine need imo...

If they sell a house and apply for a council house they've made themselves intentionally homeless and don't qualify, if they own a property anywhere, they also don't qualify.

If they sell a house and apply for benefits - they'll want to know what happened to that money and the amount they'd have for a house puts them way over the benefits threshold.

DLA or AA is not affected by income or savings and is awarded purely on care needs, so your MIL may qualify for that.

Stand back and watch. They will need to be homeless to get a council flat, and if they have made themselves 'intentionally homeless' the council has no duty to house them.

DLA will not be paid as she is too old if she has claimed attendance allowance.

Then there are the medical checks she will have to go for every couple of years to see she is still disabled.

When you open a bank account these days you have to give a national insurance number, if they have an old account it might not be linked to that, but if their pension is paid into a bank account then the DSS can trace where it is going.

That was the impression I got Pink, so for me it's not drip feeding - although I hadn't worked out the second home was abroad, just that they'd give the money away. It's what I was working on when in my previous posts.

They're too old to try and play the system now, they've got no benefits history behind them and plenty of paying in history. It's not there for you to just use when you've paid enough in, it's there for when you need it, which they don't. The council will expect you or your BIL to take them in (especially if they've given you all their money).

In a way selling up and splitting the money isn't a bad idea as it will help with inheritance tax one day, but that's a different subject.

Thanks for the info confuddled-I think the original plan with the sale of holiday home was to avoid inheritance tax but has now snowballed.

Its no use trying to tell mil anything though as she believes what she wants too-eg the friend who got the brand new flat

I just think its rich that they bitch constantly about scroungers and then try and play the system themselves...

dont want to be accused of drip feeding but more info-the 2nd home is abroad.they have already said that if they sell it will put it in dh and bils names so government doesnt get it. they could easily afford to sell both homes and get a bungelow or adapted home.i dont see why the council should house them when they are not in genuine need imo...

All property transfers are checked within 5 years and on their death it is now to late to transfer to escape tax, they have been misinformed.

However if your MIL was diagnosed with certain conditions and there were no homes for sale in the LA that would suit her needs, there is an ability to sell your property and be housed by the Council/HA or a charity.

That is why on all new estates there has to be a range of houses, for sale and rent.

Thismay not apply in your case but it is quite right that someone newly disabled has this ability, otherwise a care home would be needed, which costs the government more. If one spouse remains in the family home, it is not counted as assets when deciding on ability to pay.

But there are plenty of homes for sale that they could buy-her main problem seems to be stairs-although her disability didnt seem to stop her from managing on her hokiday abroad in a very mountainous country

They have the means to buy a house to suit her needs so why should the council rehome them?

They have the means to buy a house to suit her needs so why should the council rehome them

If they haven't sold their house yet, then it's hypothetical. It isn't impossible, though, as planning for future care needs comes into it when deciding these things. It costs less to give people adapted homes than put care in place.

They could ask for an assessment from the elderly disabled team and you would be surprised at the options available, depending on where you live.

Councils are very hot on deprivation of capital. They would be expected to get any property signed over to others signed back.

Where I live you can get sheltered accommodation no matter how much money you have or whether even you own your own home. Perhaps this is what happened to your mothers friend. It's not illegal but it will cost her because she will have to pay for it because she has too much
money.

be careful of having houses and money put under your name because if you ever need to claim anything it will look like its yours and make you ineligable.

Surely, if your MiL is disabled, they should alter their own house rather than pester the Council for a suitable home.