Universal credit

[Jojo1900]

Please can someone help me? I have autism and generally struggle with things, I realised last week that I had forgotten to update my savings on universal credit. I believe I will get a fine and need to pay it back. I’m more worried that when I send my bank statements in they will see that I have a private vinted account that I sell on. I do sell lots of my own things (hoarder / compulsive shopper). I’m worried what they will make of this? Also some payments from eBay but I mostly stopped using them a couple of years ago so those payments are very small. What if they don’t believe me that I’m selling my own stuff?! Can they access my vinted or eBay? I’m so scared, I can’t eat or sleep or function really, as I say I am diagnosed autistic and I can’t cope with this at all. Am I going to jail?

Do you receive over £1000 a year on vinted and eBay? Baccarat if you do it doesn’t matter if you are selling your own things. It’s classed as a small bodies and you need to declare it.

Yes it probably is but it’s all my stuff

Of course you won’t go to jail. They’re very unlikely to question it (I’m a fraud manager local authority- work with DWP all the time).
As pp suggests if you are earning /trading and have done so for over a year you would need to declare it but I very much doubt it’ll affect your claim.
I certainly wouldn’t be interested in your income. They won’t be accessing your vinted or eBay.

That's irrelevant. It's still an income. John Lewis could claim the same - they own the stuff til they sell it. Don't worry though, they will take all of your income into consideration to ensure you're not claiming too much. We're all human, if you've made a mistake, they will find a way to ensure you pay it back at a reasonable rate.

You won't go to jail ,I think the best thing to do.is be open with them ,you might be asked to.pay an overpayment back ,but they shouldn't expect you to pay it back in a,lump sum

Not specific to the OP, but we absolutely should be looking at vinted/eBay/youtube/influencer type accounts. There's so many side hustles these days, we should be monitoring every penny to ensure tax payers' money goes to those who actually need it, rather than those that have learned to work the system

If what you have in all your bank accounts, PayPal and Vinted is under £6k, then don't worry about it. You only have to report savings if it goes over that, and you are allowed to sell items you no longer want/need anymore. That is not classed as income.

for universial credit with a bank balance because its up and down etc i presumed as long as its under 6K then its within the limits ?

@Swirlythingy2025 I was thinking more of it in terms of an an income than OP’s savings. Some people state they’re self employed vinted /ebay seller.
£6k savings is fine yes.

fair points so if its a reguar income then you need to say etc

Yes that’s right @Swirlythingy2025 keep accounts/records and declare it. Plus any outgoings, P&P etc.

Selling your own second hand stuff is not classed as earned income with UC.
It is only classed as income if you do it as a business... such as buying bundles of clothing and selling the bits individually etc.

Its very very expensive to 'monitor every penny'. It would cost a lot more than it would save.

what about if anyone gets a tax refund as its a one off and if it keeps it under the 6k but would be used for bills etc ?

thats what i wondered with the bank account and save a bit one week spend a bit the next week etc, so my thinking was as long as not self employed etc and always under 6k limit etc

We would have no way of knowing if it was your own stuff or not. If (and unlikely) you had piles of expensive items, I don’t know jewellery, records perhaps and you sell an item a week, every week and it’s going on for a year plus then we would say that’s an income. It doesn’t matter if you don’t see it that way, if you think it’s not a business, we would see it as an income. May depend on the decision makers opinion and your argument, but selling things constantly and regular credits, I’d consider that self employment. I’m not talking about old jumpers for £3 here and there sporadically. HMRC would also class as an income. We have a work colleague who sells records- £75-150 plus a pop, so this info is from him!

@Swirlythingy2025 a tax refund would usually be treated as income in the period it’s been received under UC rules. Under HB/CTS old rules it’s capital. But it’s been years since I processed so I could be wrong!

much appricated

So, in modern day, we need to find the tech to make it work. It's too lazy for government to say 'it's too expensive to means test' or 'it's too expensive to check for fraud'. We need to find ways, it can't be that hard in an increasingly cashless society where most money is moved electronically.

Yes, a side hustle will be people flipping items and making money. A side hustle is not someone who is selling stuff that does not fit them anymore. No one makes profit on selling their own second hand shite.

I thought you were concerned with the cost to the tax payer. Just pointing out its going to cost much more to keep an eye on every single benefit claimants vinted and eBay activity on the off chance they've made more than a few quid selling on a bag of children's clothes than we'd save in fraud prevention. So false economy.

My concern is the tax payer. Which is why I said we need to find a way to make checking for fraud cost effective. Not that we should spend loads of money doing it for little return. I'm not sure how else to explain this to help you understand my point.

Not sure why you think I don't understand your point. I do. You said we should be monitoring every penny. I pointed out that's too expensive. Clearly there isn't a way to make monitoring cost effective, or the government would already be doing it. Monitoring is also only the start. It would need to be followed by taking claimants through investigation and possibly prosecution, also extremely expensive. Then, if they have children, responsibility to ensure they are still fed and housed when benefits are stopped incurs more cost. If your concern is for the tax payer, these costs need to be weighed against the desire to punish people.

so you would build a system to save money but the amout of money needed to be saved would need to be much higher and at present there is not a way to make that system

There isn't a way 'because the government would already be doing it'. I'm going to guess that you work for the government don't you? Fuck me, and people wonder why the public sector is deemed to be backward. I can't believe what I'm reading.

How much do you have in savings? Have they actually asked to see your bank statements?