To think it's outrageous that a poor pensioner is charged money because she saved

[MummyChelleKent]

I'm so upset with the mail story. A very poor pensioner on a pension of 150 a week saved a bit every month. After a while she saved up 22k to help with her funeral costs and now she's being told she can't have housing benefit and will have to give them all of her savings!

[BrokenWing]

I agree, op. I think the system stinks. She has lived very frugally.

Which part stinks? If you have over £16k in the bank you don't need benefits is fair. The money should go to those that need it most.

If you fraudulently claim benefits you will need to pay them back and could potentially be prosecuted/jailed. Which is fair.

[Proteinshakesandovieshat]

If the lady does have learning difficulties and is illiterate then someone was helping fill the forms in and helping with banks etc.

Or somebody should have been.

It's quite clear this money wasnt a funeral fund. It was her children's inheritance. I am guessing they assumed no one would notice her savings. Now the adult children come out of the wood work because it's their inheritance that is at stake.

[HelenaDove]

I think there has been a lot of embellishment on this story.

[Liverbird77]

I agree, op. I think the system stinks. She has lived very frugally.
I wish she had just spent of all on having a great time, like all the irresponsible ones.
I bet she doesn't have " essentials " like a smartphone, big TV etc. I bet she doesn't smoke etc etc
I am really sorry for the lady.

[Alsohuman]

Forget 65. She’s one of the generation who got their pension at 60.

[Lunde]

There is a lot of this story that doesn't make sense

Not least is if she is currently 86 - she would have only been 56 when she "retired" in 1989 and not 65

[ghostofharrenhal]

@Alsohuman

[ghostofharrenhal]

it's all a bit confusing! But you're right @alsohuman , 32K saved over 26 years isn't excessive, and she would have been getting a fair bit of interest on her savings up until the last ten years or so.

Wasn't there a similar case where someone had saved 55k from their benefits for their child's future and ended up getting prosecuted?

[Alsohuman]

Wrong! I mean 1993, don’t I?!!

[Alsohuman]

So she’ll have started drawing her state pension in 1984, when she was 60 if that date’s correct. So a bit less than £100 a month saved. I so wish she’d spent it.

[Sockwomble]

"If she was 65 in 1989 she would be in her 90s now. And she would have started getting her State Pension at 60 not 65."

She was 65 in 1998 according to the express. It seems to have got changed to 1989 in other papers.

[codenameduchess]

That's how it's worked out, she will need to pay back money fraudulently claimed from the point she became ineligible. that is how it has always worked.

The reporting on this story is so biased, overly emotive language and no attempt to acknowledge the basic fact of wrong doing but why let facts get in the way of a good council bashing story!

Fgs, the daily fail are forever raging that immigrants get benefits and housing to survive but it's fine for an old white lady to rake it in.

[NitrousOxide]

I think the compromise should be to work out how much she’s been overpaid since her savings reached £16k and make her pay that amount back.

I think that’s what they’re doing? I don’t think they’re legally allowed to take more than they’re owed? I hope not, anyway!

They’d probably go back to when her savings hit £10k because that’s the point a pensioner’s benefits are partially reduced. They could only claim back the deducted amounts though, because at that point she’d still have been entitled to some hb.

[SagAloojah]

@Alsohuman that would be a good compromise

[Alsohuman]

But it was really hers. Everything she claimed was money she was entitled to until she’d saved £16k. As I say, I’m really conflicted on this. I think the compromise should be to work out how much she’s been overpaid since her savings reached £16k and make her pay that amount back. But I guess that’s too sensible.

[HappyHammy]

Its need to be paid back. What's the alternative? What's to stop everyone saving over the threshold in the future and claiming h.b. we can all claim innocence.

[BrokenWing]

Council described as callous. Yes, I think they have been. Obviously a complicated case.

I don't understand how they can be described as callous, the money must be returned to the public purse. They are recovering money that has been fraudulently claimed, she had £32k in savings and didn't need housing benefit or council tax relief. It is the right thing to do, obviously the women and her family wont be happy their perceived inheritance has just been wiped out, but it was never really theirs.

They would have had regular letters over the last 30 years to ask them for any change in circumstances/savings over the limit and they would have repeatedly lied.

[SagAloojah]

In my case I have my own home and a private pension so I won’t rely entirely on the state.

[onlyjustme]

I hold my hands up to not RTFT but...
I USED to feel exactly the same as the OP.
However, this excludes the value of contributions to society through spending. How much tax would be paid if she had spent her money instead of saving it? How many more people would benefit from the money being put back into the economy?
Saving isn't always the right thing to do!

[BarbaraofSeville]

Or she could be planning on spending most of it on a really elaborate headstone and serving dripping bread and tap water at the wake.

[harriethoyle]

I want to go to that funeral... it'll be a doozy for 22k!!

[Alsohuman]

She did start getting her pension at 60. All women did until very recently.

[Oblomov19]

Council described as callous. Yes, I think they have been. Obviously a complicated case.

[ghostofharrenhal]

This story just does not add up in lots of way, not least in that:

"Mary Morley, 86, did not want to burden her family after retiring in 1989 at 65, so she began tucking away part of her State Pension every week."

If she was 65 in 1989 she would be in her 90s now. And she would have started getting her State Pension at 60 not 65.

And the council have no power to "strip her of her savings" thay can ask for the money back, but they can't empty her savings account willy nilly.

[codenameduchess]

It’s made me re-evaluate my own attitude to money. I’m a saver (albeit have always worked full time) and I think I need to spend more.

That's the problem, everyone expects to be 'looked after' and the state simply can't afford to do that. The population is ageing and the same level of support in retirement is simply not sustainable. People need to take responsibility for their retirement and invest in a decent pension, have savings and plan for care needs, living costs and luxuries in retirement rather than feel entitled to free money.

This lady was not entitled to her entire income as pp suggests, she became ineligible but carried on claiming so she could save. If that's an option can I stop paying my mortgage and council tax now so I can save with no consequences?