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.

Not that any of the legal detail above hasn’t already been stated mutiple times in this thread, but

*If all of a sudden, you open a child savings account just as you are made redundant and transfer all your savings into it then they will likely count that as deprivation.

Which seems to be the most likely instance in which the OP would apply for UC as it is right now that she’s exposed. In a couple more years she likely won’t be.

The onus of proof is on the DM to prove that the claimant’s intention was to increase or retain their entitlement to benefits.

Well, whether the OP eventually gets away with it or not, the one thing that we know for certain is that this is exactly her intention, so it makes it hard to understand why people are defending her proposal as “just good financial planning”.

The OP has said multiple times she doesn’t have any intention of claiming UC now or ever. She’s asking the ‘what if’ question to get the facts in case her circumstances drastically change.

But seriously @Jaalp make sure you are prioritizing other savings, specifically retirement and emergency funds.

But it is to the OP. So important that she's asking how to safeguard those funds.

I don't agree with 'playing the system' but it sounds like OP is just trying to prepare for anything that might impact her ability to give her child what she and others believe is the better education.

OP, I wouldn't keep worrying about losing your job - if there were redundancies at your place, it's unlikely you'd know about them unless/until they affect you anyway, at which point there wouldn't be much you could do.

Instead, I'd just keep doing what you've been doing; keep saving what you can so that you have both the school fees you need AND ideally 6 months salary put aside. This would give you 6 months to look for a job if necessary.

@CheekyHobson yep- I suspect There is a strong possibility the OP has 'come into money' and knows this is a likely scenario if she sticks it all away
I simply don't know anyone at this level talking about how it affects UC - tax - yep!!

Your allowed to shame someone who saves and works hard. But not allowed to shame other groups. Hate this attitude in society.

The only thing the OP is being shamed for is doing something that she acknowledges in her own thread title is
open to moral question.

some financial planning is perfectly ok to do at last minute with UC. Dumping money into pension from pay etc

Unsure about legislation regarding child savings accounts. But some things are immune from the deprivation of capital rules. (pensions, debt payments etc)

It has been explained to you time and time again in simplistic language. What is puzzling to me is that you can’t seem to understand it.

I am giving my opinion on a thread that the OP started that I think that it is morally wrong to hide £200,000 of savings in a trust (irrespective of what that money is for) in order to claim benefits if she loses her job.

Why would I want to shame other people on benefits? Unless they are committing benefit fraud and come onto Mumsnet to ask for advice, they aren't doing anything morally wrong.

Oh, and your claim that the only people that it is OK to shame are people who work hard and save is ridiculous.

People who don't work and who claim benefits are one of the most demonised groups in society. Don't you remember the rhetoric of the Cameron government 'strivers v skivers'? Even people who don't work and claim benefits due to illness or disability are regularly questioned and doubted.

what interesting replies

What, you mean some agreeing and some disagreeing, just like here?

Perhaps you are reading a different thread to the one I am as it is almost all comments saying it’s either not possible (from a person with direct legal expertise in the matter), possible only through prepaying fees, or at the least runs a risk of being disallowed. Not one person has said yep sure, totally fine and legal.

Deluded and cheeky.!!!

saltinesandcoffeecup, AHH but she will try and claim if she loses her job. It's hidden in plain sight in her words.

I assume that the savings OP has are after huge taxes she's paid already

I would assume that too and I haven't said otherwise.

My post was to challenge the poster that said that the only group that it was OK to shame are people who work hard and save as this is absolutely not true. The fact that the OP has savings from income that has been taxed is completely irrelevant to the point that I was making.

This entire thread is very indicative of the problems we have - there is a group (high earners) who are always expected to give, but not to take much back when they need it. There are numerous other groups for whom it's ok to receive without contributing much.

We could move to a system where we all pay higher taxes and get higher and universal benefits in return.

High earners aren't generally in favour of that though but tend to want to pay lower taxes.

This is it. I wouldn't describe someone with so much in savings as 'needing' universal credit. They have money, they just do not want to use it to support themselves or their child. If we set up a system where every wealthy person qualified for universal credit then taxes would need to be higher to cover that.

The benefit system is there for those in genuine need who don’t have any further funds and not for someone sitting on two hundred grand and I say this as a higher tax payer

@nearlylovemyusername I'm actually pro high earners being able to access the system as easily as anyone else if and when they need to access the system on the same rules as everyone else. However in this case , sticking £200k away for a non essential and then not expecting to use it if you fall on difficult times isn't one of those occasions.

This is incorrect, look up scandi model - higher earners in the UK already pay significant proportion of taxes but can't take much back (e.g. infamous childcare cliff). It's lower and middle earners who are taxed much lower
DI_The-Nordic-social-welfare-model.pdf (deloitte.com)

If you always want to take from the same (small) group but deny them benefits they will rebell.

OP, well done to you. Make sure you set up trust ASAP whilst you're in secure employment so there is no argument of deprivation of assets

There are only 5 people responding to the OP and 3 have said it’s possible and one who has said no, so you’re making things up.

And yes the poster whoshotandywarhol has said it’s fine and legal.