to think that people with savings don't realise they may not be eligible for ANY Universal Credit

[OriginalRoute]

Universal Credit will be affected by savings over £6000 and if an individual or a couple have savings of £16000 between them they will not be entitled to any Universal Credit. I'm in a full time low paid job and have no pension, but do have savings slightly above £16000 from my inheritance. It wasn't a big safety net for the future especially with current interest rates but I thought it was better than nothing. Now Nothing would actually give me a much better return and I'm going to have to spend it on topping up my income, as I don't think the chance of getting a higher paid job is likely in the foreseeable future.

I agree with the posters who have gently queried why, if you have £16K stashed, the Government should be topping up your day-to-day living expenses.

because £17k is cash. You can't live off your equity, yes you cann potentially remortgage your house but then that's just getting into debt. Most middle income earners can't afford to save that kind of cash, you certainly shouldn't be able to save that on benefits.

But the ring and the car can be easily sold and are both 'non essential'

Also I would think nest eggs might have been inherited or accumulated before peoe had children and claimed CTC ( as opposed to having been saved 'from' CTC/benefits).

yes technically they could be sold but A jewellery and cars may depreciate in value and therefore are not worth the money you paid for them. and B, do people suggest that it should be ok for someone to come round and value your property to check what is sellable and what isn't. It simply isn't comparrible to say that if you have a ring of value then you shouldn't be entitled vs if you have actual cash sitting in the bank. To compare the two is completely ridiculous.

thekidsrule any money in child accounts is treated as belonging to the parents in all cases where claim benefits is involved.

Ah, just read some stuff about 'transitional protection' and UC and it might be that OP will be ok to keep claiming. The 16k limit might only apply to new claimants. Will link for OP in a min.

it's still money though. Where it came from is irrelevant. If you have 17K in the bank then you have the means to survive on that money. It is not the responsibility of the welfare state to maintain your lifestyle while enabling you to maintain your savings as well.

If a banker previously working for one of the large banks saved 17K of his bonus last year and was then sacked, would you think he should be entitled to benefits then?

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/ucpbn-transitional-protection.pdf

I am not sure but I think this suggest that existing CTC claimants will be 'guaranteed' similar cash supplements under UC as they currently get unless they have a 'significAnt change' to circumstnce.

TSC- I think I am just pissed off with Tory cuts across the board

This link also suggests OP and her savings might be ok due to 'transitional protection'
(Exratty originally linked to this one on previous page).

www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/ucpbn-3-capital.pdf

Taken from above link:

'e) People with capital of £16,000 or more who are entitled to Tax Credits before migrating to Universal Credit will receive transitional protection to protect their cash income. Capital limits are not changing for claimants of out of work benefits or Housing Benefit.'

I'm very aware of this and have mentioned it on mumsnet before.

My capital that will disqualify me is a share in a property that I can't sell without taking legal action to force the sale - which will cause huge issues for my family. Something that I'm not really prepared to do at this stage.

Good... If you've got thousands in the bank, use that first because that's what they're for. Alternatively, invest it into a pension or something.

The Tories pursuing policies that discourage saving.

Their inconsistency is astonishing.

People need to be aware of the deprivation of capital rule. If you have savings you suddenly spend in order to keep yourself on benefits, you can be investigated and treated as though you still have the money in the bank.

Childrens savings also have to be declared. Even Child Trust Funds which, although it is not technically your money as it is in the childs name and totally inaccessible by the parent, you should make the DWP aware of it.

Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but I've been searching and can't find the answer to this.

Currently I receive some child tax credits, I work part-time and am a single parent. I also get maintenance from my ex-h - at the moment child maintenance payments aren't used when tax credits are assessed. Will that change when this new system is brought in?

No, it won't change.

scroll to the bottom

Thanks MsNobodyAgain.

What if each of your 4 DC had 5k each in bonds? (Gift from gp's for their future). Technically savings but not in a bank iykwim.

"The Tories pursuing policies that discourage saving."

This doesn't discourage saving. It discourages people building up enormous cash reserves at the taxpayers' expense ... big difference. The OP could have chosen to put their spare cash windfall into investments, Premium Bonds, a pension, shares, property, assets, children's ISAs, all kinds of options other than cash deposits.

this has always been the case though. and they need to know how much your children have so there is no hiding your nest egg there

crazy it depends if you can access them. If it is a bond tied up and payable solely to them when they are, lets say 18, it should be fine. If you can withdraw or access that money, it can be a grey area.

you used to be able to get housing benefit on a mortgate