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!

She did save it from her pension. Why do people find it so hard to believe?

Only because she was claiming housing benefit and council tax relief.

She was entitled to all her income @HeadintheiClouds. Because she saved some of that income, she became ineligible because of her savings. Is that concept too difficult for you?

In one year the average age of people they caught out for benefit fraud was 97. Yes, 97!

Typical going after the easy targets. Same with dog fouling, litter, etc - council wardens turn a blind eye to the 6 foot bald headed tattoo'd bloke but come down hard on the little old lady. It's time they grew a back bone.

Part of her “income” consisted of benefits she wasn’t entitled to, Alsohuman. I do understand this, thank you for asking.

You clearly don’t @Headintheclouds.

Thank you @Alsohuman. I wonder why they’re claiming she owes them council tax then, unless it’s just incompetence?

I hope the family has access to good advice about that part at least. It also needs to be investigated because if she’s illiterate, someone else was filling in those forms and claiming she didn’t have savings. They were either deliberately fraudulent or very negligent.

Nothing they did would surprise me @Nitrousoxide. They’re utter fuckwits.

on a scale of benefit fraud hers want that bad.

She is entitled to housing benefit
She is entitled to council tax benefit (?)
She is entitled to state pension

The problem is that she didn’t spend a lot of it and it accumulated.

She didn’t steal any money, for example, by claiming housing benefit whilst living rent free.

This is why people have sympathy. You would be hard hearted not to have some sympathy for her.

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.

What is it with people saying she was "entitled" to save.

Er, can I get all my rent and tax bills paid for me, then claim benefits, and I get to keep the benefits because I was "entitled"?! No, and that's how it should be.

It really fucks me off to have people arbitrarily having 1 rule for some, another rule for others.

What if she'd been 55, and about to retire? Would that have been ok?
What about 45?
Or a 25 year old single parent claiming fraudulently?

Why is age relevant to this discussion at all?

Fraud is fraud. You can disagree with the rules, you can fight to change them... But don't tell me you want the rules applied subjectively and at the whim of who pulls the most heart strings. It's not how benefits should be awarded.

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.

Trouble is the same systems won't be in place in 50 years. There may not even be a basic state pension for all. The whole stack of cards is coming down. Like with final salary pension schemes - now mostly closed to younger workers whilst many who've retired in the past 20/30 years are sitting pretty on 2/3rd final salary schemes with a tax free lump sum too! Public sector workers are now generally having to work more years until they get their occupational pensions. Heaven knows what the benefits system will look like in 20/30 years time.

Just because it may have been better for someone who is retired now, by spending and not saving for the last 40 years doesn't mean that you'll be better off doing the same. If you don't save/invest, you may find that there aren't any safety nets when it comes to be your time.

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?

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.

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

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

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

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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.

@Alsohuman that would be a good compromise

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.

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.

"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.