Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think UC guidelines regarding savings are unfair

346 replies

dancinguser · 20/06/2020 22:57

Prepared to get flamed for this and apologies if it's been done before but here goes.

So it's looking likely that DP will be made redundant within the next few weeks due to there not being enough work coming in to justify bringing back all of the staff that were working pre-lockdown.

I had a look into universal credit should this happen to see if we're able to get any support until he can find another job and we meet all of the criteria except "you and your partner have £16,000 or less in savings between you." We have been saving for a house deposit for 2 years and have just over £16k between us. Pre-lockdown we were viewing houses and have been waiting for the right one to make an offer on.

Now before the obvious is stated that we wouldn't receive support as we have money that others don't which could pay for the rent, bills etc. I've put an example below to explain why I think it's unfair -

Person A earns £30k per year, their outgoings total £10k leaving them with £20k. They spend a little of the money but put over £16k into savings for a house.

Person B earns £30k per year, their outgoings total £10k leaving them with £20k. They spend this money on luxuries such as a new car, designer clothes, a new sofa, the latest iPhone.

Both Person A & B lose their job. Person B receives UC to help pay their rent and bills, whilst sitting on their new sofa in their designer clothes with a nice car sitting in the driveway. Person A must burn through their own savings before being eligible for support, all whilst having 0 luxuries.

So whilst at face value it makes sense that people with savings pay using them, I find it ridiculous that two people who have had the exact same money coming in wouldn't receive the same support based on whether they are good at saving their money or not. Why are people who choose to save their money being penalised against someone who may have spent their money frivolously? IMO if two people both have had the same income they should be eligible the same support, AIBU?

OP posts:
lyralalala · 21/06/2020 03:22

@LonginesPrime

You can get a lot of other state benefits without being means tested.

State pension and PIP, for example. This is very unfair that the super-rich can do it.

Have you ever applied for PIP?

Honestly, if someone doesn't need the money, why would they put themselves through that? I can't imagine many of the super-rich are trying to navigate that system for fun!

Even if they are; PIP is for a specific reason. It's not about replacing income so why would it be means tested?

Means testing would rule out a shit load of the people it helps keep in work, and in turn they'd end up costing more because they'd be forced out of their jobs.

Pixxie7 · 21/06/2020 03:38

Why do people keep on about the state pension, it is not a benefit but a right if you have paid enough NI contributors. In other words worked all your life.

Sandybval · 21/06/2020 04:04

Nobody cared how shit UC was when it only affected poor people

So very true.

Of course it's fair, you have money to live on so you should do so.

ZombieFan · 21/06/2020 04:35

Their has to be a savings limit for UC, but you are right on the boundary so its hard. Just stash a few quid under the mattress until your savings are below £16000, then you can claim UC. Its not the end of the world.

HypatiaCade · 21/06/2020 06:31

This is what is so sad about the UK benefits system. Saving a deposit for a house is really, really hard, and takes a long time. One short spell of un/under employment and you can lose it all. A real benefits trap.

In Australia it is so different. Savings don't usually disqualify you for benefits.

autopilotpeach · 21/06/2020 06:34

@HypatiaCade

This is what is so sad about the UK benefits system. Saving a deposit for a house is really, really hard, and takes a long time. One short spell of un/under employment and you can lose it all. A real benefits trap.

In Australia it is so different. Savings don't usually disqualify you for benefits.

australia here we come! Grin
Casino218 · 21/06/2020 06:39

You have savings. Benefits are a safety net to ensure you can eat, keep dry etc not a lifestyle choice.

kojolo · 21/06/2020 06:45

Yes, UC is designed to punish you and benefits in general force you to make choices that are bad for you long term and keep you dependent, poor, and unskilled. The benefits system has always been this way. I can tell you much worse stories than the 16k savings rule.

kojolo · 21/06/2020 06:46

Er, and I'm sorry it's happening to you, though I know I didn't sound it just then. But actually I am. It's shit for everyone.

NoHardSell · 21/06/2020 07:10

The system doesn't have to be this way

It wasn't this way (tax credits)

It is a Tory philosophy in action

In the 1930s, everything was assessed. People visited your house and added up the cost of everything. You could only claim benefits once you had sold your radio, for example. That is a Tory/Liberal philosophy.

It doesn't have to be that way. It's counter-productive. But while your neighbours and fellow mumsnetters think it should be that way, it will stay that way. You can only play the system you are in.

Quietheart · 21/06/2020 07:12

Nobody gives a fuck about how harsh the rules are for UC until it affects them. Perfectly demonstrated by the fact you have just noticed this @dancinguser 7 years after UC was introduced.

Perhaps if more people had taken notice way back when, they could have helped change the system rather than moan about how unfair it is because they are suddenly having to claim.

PrincessConsuelaVaginaHammock · 21/06/2020 07:19

It's counterproductive, and also anyone who thinks people don't hide cash under mattresses and buy gold to get round it is extremely naive.

NoHardSell · 21/06/2020 07:26

@PrincessConsuelaVaginaHammock

It's counterproductive, and also anyone who thinks people don't hide cash under mattresses and buy gold to get round it is extremely naive.
Why? That's what people do all the time. I can't believe the naivety of people who don't realise that. People play the system they are in. Personal jewellery doesn't count. Have 100k in gold jewellery. Sorted. Bit late for the op to do it legally but plenty do.
NoHardSell · 21/06/2020 07:27

Oh god it's too early, I can't read! You're saying that too!! Need my coffee Grin

sashh · 21/06/2020 07:32

In that case it makes more sense to make a large purchase that takes us below £16k, claim UC until DP is earning again and then sell said purchase.

Nope, that's not allowed.

Unless you remove the 'savings' completely and let millionaires claim there will always be a threshold, some people will fall just below, and others just above.

Why do people keep on about the state pension, it is not a benefit but a right if you have paid enough NI contributors. In other words worked all your life.

It's a benefit.

I'm on ESA, contribution based, I have a full NI record to get a pension. Did I mention my ESA is contribution based?

I also have an ill health pension I got because I paid in to a pension.

Because I have a pension my ESA is cut in half.

Now that IS unfair.

WitchesGlove · 21/06/2020 07:35

Pixxie- Not every pensioner has worked and contributed!

If you never bothered working, you don’t get left to starve!

WitchesGlove · 21/06/2020 07:37

Longines-

No, I have never applied for PIP.

The rich do apply for it, believe me. Often the rich are also the greediest people!

David Cameron used to claim benefits for his disabled son, the greedy cunt!

Mawbags · 21/06/2020 07:40

It’s to stop people starving on the streets OP, not pocket money.

Presumably they need to check your statement so you now can’t squirrel anything away or spend it unless your redundancy is only a verbal W discussion

But I don’t actually know, I’m probably talking nonsense

NoHardSell · 21/06/2020 07:40

@WitchesGlove

Longines-

No, I have never applied for PIP.

The rich do apply for it, believe me. Often the rich are also the greediest people!

David Cameron used to claim benefits for his disabled son, the greedy cunt!

That attitude is linked to the 'benefits are for poverty' attitude

Look where that gets us. Squabbling over the shit in the road while our lords and masters go past on horseback. Look higher.

AnotherEmma · 21/06/2020 07:43

What LonginesPrime and lyralalala said.

Newname12 · 21/06/2020 07:44

Same position here.

20 years ago I set up an ISA as a mortgage repayment vehicle, as was the thing then.

All was fine with tax credits, i got help with childcare fees and a small amount a month which made a big difference.

However with UC I get nothing. My mortgage needs repaying in 5 years- but I will need to live on that money until I find another job.

There’s a chance I could lose my house.

Whereas someone who chose a repayment mortgage will have simply paid that money into their house already, will get uc and won’t risk their house.

MarshaBradyo · 21/06/2020 07:50

As hard as it is to bear the savings rule makes sense as it is.

Do you work btw?

WitchesGlove · 21/06/2020 07:50

NoHardSell-

My point was simply that it’s a huge waste of money to give it to the rich!

Why are people moaning so much about UC? Some people are actually better off on it, and you can still claim an awful lot in some circumstances.

Tink88 · 21/06/2020 07:52

So you have a fairy large amount of savings but now you've come to a sticky situation you want everyone else to fund your house deposit?

Alanna1 · 21/06/2020 07:56

The welfare state has to be a safety net or it’s not affordable - that’s partly why furlough can’t go on forever. Your partner should look for another job. Could you apply for a mortgage in principle now on a much smaller property than you’d like before he is redundant? Could you then manage the repayments on your income?