Executor worried brother’s inheritance share could affect benefits and leave him vulnerable

[Gitsandshiggles123]

Dad has died and left his house to myself, sister and my brother. I’m the executor of his will.
My brother has various needs and would be classed as a vulnerable adult. He has a care worker and struggles with day to day life. He’s married but I feel this is just a marriage of convenience to suit his wife.
He’s on various benefits and has never been able to hold down a job.
My parents always stuck their heads in the sand regarding my brother. They wouldn’t listen to my sister and I when we told them that just leaving him a 3rd of the house would not help him financially because it would affect his benefits.
So now dad has gone my sister and I are both really worried how we can help him. He’s involved with some ‘friends’ that we feel would take huge advantage of him.
Does anyone have any advice? Obviously we are going to consult a solicitor but just trying to find out first as much as possible. Thanks

This man is married. He has a wife. You can’t just decide he doesn’t have capacity. His wife is his NOK isn’t she? Unless abuse is happening you are overstepping here.

Would he take advice from an IFA? If you are worried he'd be taken advantage of by the people around him, I'd advise investing in something like a long term income bond - so he can"t access the capital but can benefit from the interest on it.

Yet another of example of why I despair of “free” or diy wills. If your dad was properly advised he would
have put your brothers share in a discretionary trust in his will managed by you with a clear letter of instruction for you. But he didn’t so here you are.

I think you need to see if you can get the will varied into a disabled person's trust which is specifically designed for these purposes. I don't know if it's possible though, as after death may be too late if your brother doesn't have capacity and/or depending on the regs around variations if they effect benefits.

Is there a chance here OP that the wife will go through this money like wildfire? You could involve social services to see if there is some way to protect him from being taken advantage of?

This could be the best way to deal with the oh

get legal advice

ive seen someone on benefits receive a share of a house, then come off benefits- but then they “squandered” the money ( in the eyes of benefits) and didn’t keep receipts

they tried to reapply for benefits but it kept being refused as they spent the money “ faster than appropriate “

the woman was actually upset she had ever inherited and genuinely wished she hadn’t

for someone on benefits of a vulnerable position it really can be a minefield

id see about setting up a trust and how that would affect his benefits

A trust can potentially protect the inheritance from being treated as your brother’s personal capital, but it has to be the right type of trust and set up correctly.

id ask AI and seek legal advice from a solicitor

This!
Shocking how many posters want to take benefits when they have the means to pay for themselves!

so advice out there how to spend money as quickly as possible so the tax payer can go back to funding his and his wife’s life?
its dreadful this is legal, can imagine there are many many workers, out there on nmw who would love to have a couple of grand of savings, or to have the cash to splash as this poster is recommending!

This

It’s admirable that you are concerned about your brother but ultimately he is an adult and can do what he likes with the money left to him. In the circumstances I think all you can do is administer the estate and leave him be.

If hey got money over the threshold then he shouldn’t need benefits. This is likely to be a tempo situation until his savings drop back beneath the threshold.

if he’s vulnerable then he should have a social worker or similar who can support him.

I really object to paying taxes that go towards means tested benefits for people with more money than me in savings!

We had a similar situation. Very disabled uncle who was vulnerable. No wife though. We set up a trust and he was able to put in applications for money for things to make his life easier. He lived in sheltered accommodation.
He did get taken advantage of by his ‘friend’ who was allocated by social workers. Very unpleasant man who took him to Thailand and to visit sex workers. Tried to encourage him to marry a young Thai woman.
Anyway. The trust worked OK although he was resentful that he couldn’t just spend his money and was paranoid and thought the family were financially abusing him.
Might not be fully comparable though as uncle was very mentally disabled. Couldn’t read and write.

The advice is that you can’t just spend the money as quickly as possible - but at the same time you don’t have to spend it like you were on benefits which to me seems like a reasonable compromise

you can buy things that will make your life better but you can’t be frivolous or extravagant

i do find the tone of the OP - how can we rig things so he gets all that money and still gets benefits - very offensive though

Bit of a mixed message from you OP your original post seemed to say you dont want the money to go to him as it would affect his benefits... this would leave more for you and your sister right?
Then the oh no of course we don't think the tax payer should pay for people with money posts seem a bit... disingenuous.

Gosh the benefit bashers are out in force aren’t they ?
Do people not read between the lines and see there are 2 major issues here. ?

1. He will not be able to control his money himself, in that someone with such severe mental health issues that he is assigned a care worker - he is without doubt vulnerable and be an easy target for manipulators and fraudsters. (A wife that’s married him for a visa and a new obsession with the church -could easily fit that description without even leaving home. ).
2. If inheritance is over 16k then UC is void. This is not just a money issue. Although he will lose this and his housing element along with any Council Tax relief. It is something called a passport benefit that allows the recipient access to other benefits and services. Services such as carers provided by local authorities.

These issues need to be investigated before the money arrives in his account. These first and foremost issues are to find out on what basis the care is provided. If it’s purely by medical needs assessment then that’s slightly easier. If it’s provided through a combination of health need and means tested eligibility - then you need to speak to a solicitor about a discretionary trust for disability reasons. If it’s the former then the money is his and needs to be declared but I would seriously try and speak to someone higher up his care chain to ask them about appointing a corporate appointee to manage his money if appropriate.

In these circumstances his share should have been left in a discretionary trust
Take legal advice of course, but I think a pst death re arrangement might be treated as deprivation of capital

I agree with this. It’s not for taxpayers to support someone who has a large sum of money in the bank. It’s not government money, it’s other people’s money.

I'm also NAL so I second the advice to discuss with a solicitor, but I don't think this would work as it requires the beneficiary to voluntarily agree to effectively give up their direct inheritance. DWP are therefore likely to view it as 'deliberate deprivation of assets' when considering any means tested benefits.

As executor your legal obligation is to carry out the terms of the will as specified.

Yup, it’s a damned shame that your parents didn’t listen and have it put in a trust with his sisters as the trustees.

I think you’re just going to have to let this go - unless you can prove he lacks the capacity to be able to manage the windfall.

There are a number of legitimate ways to spend such money without it being deprivation of assets. If you brother has any loans, debts or credit cards he can pay them off legally. I'm assuming he is renting if on benefits but it can be spent on a car, white goods, normal household goods etc which might need replacement. If he needs any medical treatment it can also be spent on private treatment for mental health and other conditions where there is an NHS waiting list.

Can you explain explain what you mean by UC being a passport benefit to getting carers? I’m not sure I’ve understood that correctly

He can just come off benefits whilst he uses his inheritance to live off. Very simple.

"its dreadful this is legal"

Then lobby your MP to change the law.

As it stands, The Universal Credit Regulations 2013 say at Reg 50:

50(2) A person is not to be treated as depriving themselves of capital if the person disposes of it for the purposes of—

(a) reducing or paying a debt owed by the person; or

(b) purchasing goods or services if the expenditure was reasonable in the circumstances of the person's case.

I don't see that it is wrong to inform a person here of what the law says?

.

There was a case back in 2007 that was entirely on this point. This was a case that involved income support, housing benefit and council tax benefit. The court said that it is not the case that a claimant is expected to spend all of an inheritance solely in solely paying for living expenses which had previously been covered by benefits.

A woman inherited £43,600 from her mother and her income support and other benefits were then stopped. She then spent most of the inheritance and then reapplied for income support. At first, this was denied and the Decision Maker decided that she had deliberately deprived herself of capital.

The judgment says:

"She explained that she had spent her inheritance, and had only £2952.06 capital left. A breakdown was sought of how she had spent the money (p.21). She explained that she had two box files of receipts (p.22), which she appears to have delivered to the benefits office in November 2005 (p.23). She has provided a 3 page list of items she bought with the inheritance, including household items for her home, insurance payments, holiday cruises, bingo, clothes said to be needed as a result of weight changes, paying off her daughter's debts and gifts (pp.27-29). She also produced bank statements showing receipts and expenditure from just before the first receipt of £1000 on 31 July 2003. She also explained (p.29) that when her mother was alive she used to help both her and her daughter if they were struggling."

After the Decision Maker made this decision, the woman appealed and stated:

"I had been on the sick for a number of years and when the money came from my mother's estate I was able to furnish my home, treat myself and my family in the way that I wanted to because I knew that I would never have the chance again. I would have spent the money in the way that I did regardless of whether I had any benefits paid or not. The money was rationed to me in smaller lumps because was wary of spending it all which I would have done if I'd had it all, because I'm not very good at budgeting."

.

The court said that it was wrong to say that a claimant can only spend an inheritance on day-to-day living expenses. A Decision Maker should consider what would have been spent anyway on receipt of a windfall by somebody who had previously lived in relatively straightened circumstances but who was not on benefits. The test is a subjective one, from the point of view of the claimant.

The judgment is not too long and is an interesting read:

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSSCSC/2007/CIS_1775_2007.html

You can’t do a deed of variation
dWP will see it as deprivation

if he is on PIP it won’t matter
if he in on means tested benefits like LCWRA / income support then it will be taken intto account

How much inheritance is actually involved here? You say the house is being split three ways, are there other assets too? I mean, in this country a third of a share of the house could be anything from about £50K to several million pounds.