To ask how I can successfully ringfence this money? (Please don’t post for moral judgement)

[Jaalp]

I am a single parent to a 3 year old who will start school in the next two years. I have saved up a significant amount of money for schools fees. As a single parent I am constantly worried about job loss or anything else that could affect things. I am aware that if for some reason I was made redundant, for example, if I have more than a certain amount in savings then I would be expected to use this before claiming universal credit etc.

I have no intention of claiming universal credit but life happens and I have to be conscious of the potential things that could happen.

My question is, is there any way to put this money in an account for my child that would be protected as theirs and not counted in an assessment for universal credit etc should that ever happen?

Please don’t make this is a private school bashing thread or about playing the system etc. I’ve worked hard all my life and intend to continue to do so. Thanks.

Quite.
Have you seen how much UC is?
I couldn't cover my basic bills on that, let alone afford petrol to drive my child a private school.

OP, unfortunately there will always be people resentful of a single woman with a good job, her own home, and savings.

Take these response with a big pinch of salt.

No people are not resentful of those things necessarily. Most responses just don't care for someone attempting to hide money in order to fund their luxuries through other people's taxes.

She won’t be hiding the money. Do you understand how a trust fund works?

OK I'll rephrase it. She's potentially attempting to have her savings disregarded and get her luxury educational provision funded by the taxpayer. As I said, if that's legal it shouldn't be. It's immoral.

This. It really is a tiny tiny amount.

You own a house so you would get “support for mortgage interest” but this is a loan you have to pay back (with interest).

You would get JSA - maybe a few hundred a month (but you would get that for 6 months anyway under “contributions based”), you would get universal credit - again a few hundred a month and you would get a little bit off your council tax. That is it. By my calcs less than £1000 a month.

If you tie up the money in a trust then you can’t use it to save your child’s home or to prevent getting into horrible debt. Your options would be very limited.

She’s not having her savings disregarded. That money is meant for school fees. Whether OP saves it or puts it in a trust fund, it will be spent on school fees. If for whatever reason it doesn’t get spent on school fees, it’ll revert to her dc when she’s an adult, and as the dc will have the savings, she won’t be entitled to UC.

In the event that someone loses their job, savings should be used for living expenses until the threshold for eligibility is reached. They shouldn't be ring fenced to fund a luxury education while the taxpayer pays for the claimant to live.

But they won’t be her savings anymore. That’s the whole point of a trust fund.

We live in an unequal society. We won’t make it
more equal by denying benefits to a woman who spent her hard earned savings on an education for her dd.

Her daughter will be the named beneficiary, they will cease to be her savings. The education won’t be funded by the taxpayer, the trust fund will cover that.

Yes, you think it’s immoral - what’s that supposed to mean to OP?

It won't mean anything to her as she's prepared to behave like that. It obviously won't mean anything to anyone else who endorses it either.

Her living expenses would be funded by the taxpayer. She should be using the money she's saved for that not finding a way to divert it into a trust fund.

Correct. Your moral objection is entirely your problem.

If you're earning enough to have six figure savings, it's quite likely that UC would not cover your outgoings and commitments in any significant way.

It's kind of akin to committing to fund a F1 car while also worrying about retaining your eligibility for a cycle to work scheme, as though the latter is a reasonable backup plan for the former.

My moral objection is shared by a good few posters on this thread. The fact that you use the word "problem" is telling.

So then you have a shared problem 🤷🏻‍♀️ congratulations, I guess?

Telling? Of course! You and other posters have do indeed have a problem with what OP can freely do. Oh well. Why would that concern OP?

The reference to "problem" is telling, but your response doesn't, of course, acknowledge what I meant. As I said, I don't expect it to mean anything to people like the OP and people who endorse her proposed behaviour.

What is it that you meant? That what it’s ‘telling’ is that I don’t take issue with it? That I endorse the use of trust funds and financial planning? That your moral objections and judgement of my character neither offend nor distress me? No shit. Didn’t realize the obvious needed me to acknowledge it.

If so then consider it duly acknowledged.

Some of these things are your choice and you do not want to sacrifice. This is why you cannot get on the housing ladder.

moving cost - sell everything = next to no moving costs
Emergency fund - Many people do not have one. rebuild it at a later date
Pay - Would be lower but so would house costs.

The "support network" is always mentioned regarding moving to a cheaper area.

It is do-able if you are willing to sacrifice things.

Hide and steal have been used many time in this thread. Moral and ethical has also been used many times.

Hide and steal involves deception the OP's not asked about that and wants to remain within the law. Think its a bit unfair accusing the op of stealing or hiding.

Moral and ethical is a judgement that many should maybe keep to themselves. Especially since we as a society are only allowed to be judgemental in certain situation esp regarding the "less fortunate"

Many people on UC/PIP/Disability can save and have savings. And continue to grow there savings/pension. And before i get jumped on , just because you are on any of these benefits and can't save does not mean it does not happen.

You've missed the point. Im not saying I can't get onto the property ladder, rather my current circumstances have meant that I have had to spend what would have gone towards my deposit out of necessity. That's not a choice, it's just life. You can save for a reason, whether that is a house or private school, but if your situation changes you can't expect to sit on that money and then expect the taxpayer to help cover any other expenses.

I stand by that 17k is a completely unrealistic amount of savings to be able to buy a house as a single person. Not only is it nearly impossible to get a mortgage that high, having no safety net (ie. A month or two mortgage payment) is utter stupidity. It is completely unreasonable to expect someone to make that kind of financial commitment without some wiggle room. Also what makes you think I have possessions/assets that would cover moving fees (hint: I don't)?

To go back to the OP, its not about being unable to buy with that level of savings, but about having to use up what was already saved out of necessity delaying the process.

Oh and yes, I agree, you can call everything a choice, however, if were to buy a house in the current market in the way you described, I would most likely have to resort to a food bank and would struggle to cover bills on top of a mortgage and childcare. A situation I wouldn't dream of putting myself or my daughter in.

BTW, at the moment people on UC and other benefits are having to send, to the DWP, ID and bank statements, usually the last 4 months. They might also receive a phone call to check on their spending. This has caused huge anxiety to my son, who has serious mental health issues. He doesn't have huge savings, but does have a little put by in case of emergency.
Just making the point that's it's those with the least who are being put through the wringer.

It’s hard to understand why, if you have already been capable of socking away such an enormous amount of money all by yourself in a relatively short space of time, you can’t just sock away a few more £10ks in an emergency account and then you won’t need to worry about whether you qualify for UC if you lose your job.

Like most people with a reasonable skill base and age on your side, it shouldn’t be too hard to at least find another halfway decent job to tide you over until you can find something longer term, and in the meantime you can fall back on your own fund. Or just dip into your private school fund, as you won’t need some of it for a decade, and replenish it once you’re back in work. After all, you’ve been at pains to let us all know how good you are at sacrificing when you put your mind to it. Or perhaps you didn’t actually save all that money yourself like you’ve implied, and a good chunk of it came from a high-earning ex partner?

Some of us prioritized financial security before attempting to add on luxuries like private school fees.

No. If 'life happens' then your child can't go to private school

Settle it on an irrevocable trust for your child, with a clause that should they die before you a named charity is a beneficiary of the remainder. Then invest the funds into investment trust that accumulate rather than pay out income. You will have to complete an annual tax return for your child when gains reach a certain threshold. This should work. No claim for UC is even on the horizon.