To think UC guidelines regarding savings are unfair

[dancinguser]

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?

My heart bleeds for you and your just over £16k of savings 💔

You do realise that the economy being as shit as what it is will see loads more poverty related deaths. Be thankful you have that savings

I don't think you understand what benefits are for. You have 16k, stop bloody moaning.

@kojolo @MuttleysSnigger thanks that makes sense, I wasn't sure if it was an honesty thing or full on accounting

I hope your pizza was bloody delicious Kojolo, that's so shitty

@LangClegsInSpace exactly

YABU. YABVU. We are a single income minimum wage family, we have £150 savings and feel bloody lucky we have it in event of a small emergency.
Your two years savings is more than our yearly income.... UC is for those who need it, not for those with enormous savings. I think the 16k savings threshold is VERY generous.

He will receive contribution based benefits for 6 months just not means tested ones

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.

Checking savings isn't a new thing that arrived with UC. It has always been done for people who are on benefits and have no income from working.

My only encounter with the benefits system was in 1991, and I realised then that it might be a good idea to put any savings into my mortgage, as then they wouldn't counte against my eligibility for Income Support if I ever needed to claim again. (Although for some reason I can't remember, I didn't actually do that, subsequently.)

The benefits system, like the tax system, has a lot of rules that can cause two people who should really be treated the same, not to be. It is a bit unfair, but you just have to learn the rules and arrange your life accordingly. (Unlike most of Mumsnet, I see nothing wrong in maximising your finances by taking the rules into account. If what you're doing is legal, it's fine with me. And that's regardless of whether we are talking about avoiding tax or maximising benefits. If people don't like it, they should invent better rules.)

with @LangClegsInSpace*, Universal Credit was good enough for the poor who would be able to live well on it if only they didn’t buy huge TVs and all the cigarettes and alcohol, those wasters too lazy to get jobs and oh my goodness it’s shocking we have to pay for their lovely lives from our taxes!
Now suddenly it’s an unfair system, not fit for purpose and the people who deserve help can’t get it or get very little*
I think that's very interesting and has a large element of truth in it
Hopefully you will get new jobs soon and be able to start building up your savings

Really OP, have you really just posted this?

I agree that the benefits system is there to help those who have fallen on hard times and have no or limited savings to fall back in. There obviously has to be a line drawn somewhere and , fine, it is £16k.
However the poster is not extremely fortunate" to have savings in excess of £16k. They have spent two years saving for their house deposit so have obviously foregone spending their money on other things during that time.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have to use their savings to live on but it is wrong to refer to them saving diligently as being "fortunate".

Sorry just caught up and can't reply to every post seperately but to summarise - I'm sorry that I've caused offence to some posters on this thread, it wasn't my intention but I can definitely see how somebody struggling would find somebody complaining whilst having £16k in the bank offensive.

I understand there are a lot worse situations to be in that require UC, but for the posters saying it's only for those with nothing, you're able to have just under £6k with no implications and still supported until just under £16k. I don't think that £5,999 and £15,999 is nothing.

My salary would just about cover the rent and bills but wouldn't cover food, petrol etc. so if he does lose his job then yes we will have to dip into our savings.

Some people have missed the point, comparing my situation to somebody with low income unable to save. The point I was trying to make was that had we spent our money along the way aka I bought a more expensive car last year instead of the relatively cheap second hand car I did buy, the government would support that and I'd have more in personal assets (assuming the purchase wouldn't count when checking our accounts as it's a year old? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

I agree that the whole system has many flaws, a lot I was aware of but some I weren't. I have never voted for this government and hope things do change for those really struggling, in hindsight the need to change the savings cap is very small in comparison to other issues.

I think you may need to be a bit careful here TBH. If your savings are between a certain amount and 16k, then you may only be eligible for a smaller amount .Also there may be some probing questions as to where your money has been so recently spent! Not fair I know!

'Hypothetical question, how do they check the savings? I probably have 15 bank accounts I'm constantly moving money around in, you couldn't just look at one statement and see 16k sat there. So how does that work?"
You inform them of every bank account plus any cash you also have on your claim form and provide evidence in the form of statements to support them. If they fear an anomaly you can be investigated and, those with special clearance to do so, will investigate.

Having loads of different accounts makes it more likely they would check in case you have missed any off.

Hi OP, I do understand where you're coming from. I'm an inveterate saver, have been since I had DD and I relate to posters on other threads who are often accused of having a joyless existence 😀. I rarely put the heating on, never have a takeaway including coffee, don't go on holiday or have a car, no Sky or Netflix etc. So I have always had more savings than if I were a grasshopper instead of an ant. However ..... I'm very lucky to have had jobs where it has been possible for me to live (as I want to) and also save, plus my savings are as a direct result of choices I have made. I could have spent more but it would be to the detriment of my security, so I definitely don't begrudge not falling into the benefit bracket. They have to draw the line somewhere. Hopefully your claim will be temporary and you will be back on track again. I appreciate exactly what you're saying but I have friends who have never had the opportunity to save, some on long term benefits, and for them the road is long and straight and dusty.

Not sure if any of you are aware, but every nonEU immigrant is not allowed to claim UC because their visas are subject to “No Recourse to Public Funds”
Many immigrants who have lived and worked for years are being made redundant, but cannot fall back on UC even if the have nothing. They can only get new style JSA.
There have been calls to relax this rule because coronavirus has had such a devastating impact.
researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8888/CBP-8888.pdf

But the government hasn’t done it yet. However, if you are interested, there is a petition.
petition.parliament.uk/petitions/306335

If you are interested in allowing legal, visa holding nonEU immigrants the same access to UC as everyone else.

[quote kojolo]@Parkandride

They get all your bank statements. They can also call you in and criticise you over them if they feel like it. When I was on Housing Benefit and Carer's Allowance years ago I had to submit all my accounts (I worked as well and they audited me relentlessly) and bank statements and they would sit me down, in the public open room, and go through them. At that time, they could also covertly surveil you under RIPA, though I'm hopeful that has been curtailed a bit lately.

I had a takeaway from Pizza Hut for my birthday and the woman sucked her teeth and said 'alright for some'. I'll never forget it.[/quote]

"it is wrong to refer to them saving diligently as being "fortunate"."

Nonsense.

Someone with enough disposable income to be able to save some is fortunate.

There are some people who are only just able to pay the bare essentials and have nothing left for savings.

Of course there are other people who do choose to spend rather than save their disposable income.

But having disposable income is in itself a fortunate position to be in.

It's a sign of privilege that some people can't get their heads around that!

Is it 16,000? I was told your only allowed to have £6,000?

The original post is crazy. My partner just faced redudinacy because of covid. This time we were lucky and it didn't happen. But we were discussing how long our savings would last our family (significantly less than 16k). I hadn't even considered UC, not because its wrong, I'm an avid supporter of a good benefits system. Because whilst we had savings we simply arent in need. It's not up to other people to cover our expenses because we don't want to. The money is for those who are in need. As other posters have said there are families going to bed cold and hungry all the time because UC is a rubbish system which just isnt enough to live on. What money there is should go to those who simply have no choice.

UC isn’t there to reward people for making ‘good’ decisions. It’s there to prevent them starving to death. You need to stop being so entitled. If you had actually put in the effort to plan well financially you wouldn’t be in this position. You chose to be lazy with your money so this is what you get.

It’s difficult to get a system that’s fair for everyone and uc is supposed to be a safety net for the poorest. I do sympathise tho, op, it’s hard to suffer such set backs when you’ve been working towards something. What’s even worse is that if you already owned a house any equity in it would not be counted as savings. But on the other hand you wouldn’t get any help with housing costs to pay a mortgage. So it’s swings and roundabouts.

Hope your dp gets another job op and you get it sorted

But having disposable income is in itself a fortunate position to be in.

People who own a house and have equity are also in a fortunate position compared to those who cannot save but that doesn't exclude them from claiming UC.

This is what people voted for when voted for tories. People always think benefits are too generous until they have to live on them.
You will have to live on your savings until they are below the level to get benefits. No rewards for being sensible.
Your dh should get contributions based jsa though.