Brother wants his inheritance paid into his kids accounts

[renouncefifty]

My Father passed at the end of 2020 and I was named executor in the will. I was granted probate recently and have began the process of selling his property. My bother and I are joint beneficiaries in the will.

My brother is on benefits and has been for many years, he and his partner have some disabilities. My Brother has asked me to pay his share into his sons bank accounts. - I think this is his attempt to not lose his benefits.

I don't have to make any payments as yet as the flat my father owned has just gone on the market, but to be honest I'm worried that my brother is dragging me into something dodgy. I don't claim benefits and never have, the last thing I want is to commit fraud not to mention the fact if he isn't entitled due to an inheritance he really shouldn't be on benefits.

Where do I stand legally when it comes to making the payment to him once everything is wrapped up ? If I was to send the money to his kids accounts isn't that going against the will ?

Thank you in advance for any replies x

If you’re the executor, there really is no-one else in charge. No-one oversees what you do.
Your brother can give you whatever account details he wants for you to pay the money into.

How much are you talking about?

It is a dodgy ask and you can't do it if they aren't named beneficiaries to that money.
He would lose his benefits (depending on the type) as it's a large amount and sorry but so he should. Regardless of how you come into money, when you have it, you don't need certain benefits at that time. He can use the inheritance money to help him and his partner along.

Would he have access to the money once in his sons account or would it be actually for the son when he is older?

I feel sorry for him too. I'm disabled on benefits and it's a shitty little amount to live on then obviously Goddess forbid you gain any extra money because they'll snatch it right back. Keeping the disabled in their proper place at the bottom of the food chain.

@Condenast

Are you sure about this . Executor you still have legal responsibilities to ensure the monies go to the correct person . Without a deed of variation it would only take one other person to poke their nose in and report , and then there could be repercussions.

Personally I would not get involved . If the brother wants to do something dodgy then that’s up to him.

@KilljoysDutch

It’s not the governments money ? It’s the tax payers ?

My parents are in the same position and they will lose their housing benefit because of an inheritance . That’s because they are not entitled to it any more .

Sorry but if you pay or have paid any tax in the past , it’s your money as well .

As Executor you have to honour the Will. The money must be transferred to the person named in the Will. So you need to transfer into a bank account of the same name as in the Will.

@VanCleefArpels

Your brother could not access the funds if they are in an account with someone else’s babe. He’d have to get them to transfer the money back out to him which rather defeats the object.

If you do a deed of variation the money would be held in trust (assuming the kids are minors) and could only be distributed to the kids under the terms of the trust (usually capital at 18 and income to be agreed by the trustees). Again, doesn’t achieve his objective.

How much are we talking here? If the money is enough to buy a house he is going to live in then he will not lose entitlement to benefits as the house does not count as capital. He would have to close his claim, but the property and then claim again based on low income.

But If not a sum that could buy a house but over £16k then yes he needs to declare it and will lose his benefits. And why should he not? The benefits system is there as a safety net not a lifestyle choice

VanCleefArpels is correct on all points. Especially this one:

...and will lose his benefits. And why should he not? The benefits system is there as a safety net not a lifestyle choice.

Forgive my apparent heartlessness but this comes up a fair bit in my job and as a taxpayer I'd rather see benefits go to people with genuine need.

As wizzbang says, its benefit fraud. Leave that to him, don't get involved. Transfer the money to his personal account and leave the rest to him

We had similar situation when my mum died. My brother in law kept hold of it because my sister was a single mum to two kids who are both profoundly disabled and would have proved a nightmare.

It wasn't a massive sum of money, around 20k so just over the threshold....... As it was around half of that she spent on her council property to make it liveable so her kids didn't have to sleep in mouldy rooms and the electrics were safe she spent a good chunk of the rest paying for respite hours which she'd been denied over the years and a couple of holidays

It stinks. He could use the benefit to improve his life but instead it will be eaten up in living expenses. I would seek legal advice and see if there’s a work around.

My DC were named beneficiaries in my parents will.i had to sign and give confirmation to the solicitors that my DC were not able to access the money til they were over 18.

@KilljoysDutch no one is “snatching” anything.

Apart from the fact that some disability benefits are not means tested (primarily PIP), receiving a lump sum over the threshold for means tested benefits means that the claimant no longer qualifies. They are not being robbed they are just being asked to comply with the rules. Now we could have a conversation about the rules of course. But as things stand today people are not entitled to claim means tested benefits if they have over £16k in the bank. Which is quite right. Once that money is spent then a new claim can be made and if the criteria are met then benefits money will start again

@Condenast

If you’re the executor, there really is no-one else in charge. No-one oversees what you do. Your brother can give you whatever account details he wants for you to pay the money into.

How much are you talking about?

Absolutely not true, the banks have to check where large sums of money are moving from/to. Anything g remotely dodgy and they’ll be all over it. When my MIL died, her money was split between dh and BIL. It was only 45k, but the amount of proof the bank wanted in order to transfer the money was ridiculous.

I haven't read all replies so don't know if this has been said but it is possible for beneficiary to name another person to get their share. My parents did it for me and my brother when a relative died. I got the money directly from the solicitor.

I believe there is a legal mechanism to do exactly as your brother asked. Get legal advice and take it from there. Its not fraud, it happens regularly where the inheritors are already quite affulent.

I’ve suggested any inheritance I have skip me and go to my children. It can set them up but it’s too late for me, I will never be able to leave them anything.
So I can see your brothers point, however you need to get proper legal advice for it.

@KilljoysDutch

I feel sorry for him too. I'm disabled on benefits and it's a shitty little amount to live on then obviously Goddess forbid you gain any extra money because they'll snatch it right back. Keeping the disabled in their proper place at the bottom of the food chain.

If you receive certain disability benefits they are not impacted by savings etc, nor should they be. However, if you receive UC just because you don’t currently have a job, then why would they not be affected by an inheritance?

@FontyMcFontface

It stinks. He could use the benefit to improve his life but instead it will be eaten up in living expenses. I would seek legal advice and see if there’s a work around.

If his father had made a will to ensure the money went to his children instead of to his sons then this would have been avoided.

@gophergordon

A deed of variation will still be seen as deprivation of assets as will paying the money straight into the kids accounts. He will be classed as still having the money. DWP can and do search through wills to see where benefit claimants have or should have received an inheritance. As executor, you have to distribute the funds as intended and your brother needs to inform the DWP if it takes him over the allowed amount in savings (you're allowed upto 16000 with benefits tapered between 6000 and 16000) if he and his partner are on PIP then this is not means tested and will not be affected, the same with tax credits and contribution based ESA and JSA. UC and income based ESA or JSA will be affected.

This.

Don't get involved. Tell your brother to get legal advice if he thinks he can do this, but you're going to distribute the funds as intended because as executor you can be be considered a party to fraud if you don't.

@FontyMcFontface

It stinks. He could use the benefit to improve his life but instead it will be eaten up in living expenses. I would seek legal advice and see if there’s a work around.

And what if he gets enough money to buy a lovely house, then goes back on benefits once the amount returns below the threshold? That’s improving his life isn’t it?

@FontyMcFontface

It stinks. He could use the benefit to improve his life but instead it will be eaten up in living expenses. I would seek legal advice and see if there’s a work around.

As are most people's earnings... 🙄. The benefit system is not designed to prop you up whilst you divert money from other sources into areas of your choice. And no, there's no legal work around.

As are most people's earnings.

Yes, but most people’s living expenses don’t get taken away when they inherit 🙄

@weekend2021 could the brother use the lump sum for right to buy? That way he benefits from the security of owning his own home, the government benefits from no longer having to pay his rent and the money has gone to good use? Or would that also be seen as a deprivation?

There seems to be some confusing of things here. Being disabled is not the same thing as out of work and poor. Many disabled people are in work and not poor. The reason why income related benefits are available to people with low or no income (whether disabled or not) is because they have low or no income - and that is the only reason. It therefore follows that if they obtain an income, whether that be by getting a job or inheriting money, they are no longer in the same position and do not require taxpayers money.

There is a whole other discussion to be had about whether benefit levels are adequate, or what might be done to get people off benefits and into work etc. There is yet another one about the disproportionate number of people who are disabled not being able to access work; or how we treat those who are genuinely unable to undertake any employment. But none of those things are the discussion here. The discussion here is why taxpayers should subsidise the lifestyle of people who have money in the bank.