Inheritance and benefits matter

[nb47]

Hi All

I am retired and in line for a six figure inheritance. Some of my benefits are means tested (for example I receive direct payments from the council for care in my home) and I would like to pass over my entitlement to inherit to my adult children, with of course the permission of the other executors and beneficiaries. This matter is at the earliest stage, the application for probate is about to be made.

Am I correct in thinking that as long as I don't make the mistake of taking the money and then passing it to the children then I am acting lawfully?

Regards and Thanks

NB

I also agree that morally this is wrong, whatever the legalities of it.

That is not strictly true. Solicitors are human beings at the end of the day and there a certainly a few who would consider contacting the authorities anonymously in a fit of pique.

As they jolly well should when faced with people like you wanting to cheat the system. Do what you want OP, you obviously couldn't care less about expecting the taxpayer to fund your lifestyle while you give your money away. It's shameful, as the majority on this thread have pointed out, but you appear to be lacking in morals.

@Myhouseownsme

" a greedy, potentially fraudulent, selfish, self serving thief."

Thats some very odd definitions of those words you are using there @MyNameIsElizaDay

Greedy = desire to turn down £1m+
Potentially fraudulent = asking how this can legally be done
Selfish = desire to continue to receive state benefits they are entitled to
Self-serving = offering a large sum to others.
Thief = not accepting money which is not their own, which they have not worked for nor desire to receive.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand how state financing works.

They aren't entitled to the benefits, once they inherit the money. That's the point. If they choose to give it away they still lose their entitlement. That's how the deliberate deprivation rules work. They want to get around those rules, which is benefit fraud and illegal.

@MrsLarry

OP, if you do this then I really hope it catches up with you and you get what you deserve. The benefits system in this country is crumbling before our eyes. People are fighting for the benefits they rightly deserve while people like you, with the clear morals of a scrapyard dog, take take take. You should be ashamed.....though I doubt you will be.

This.

Why has someone mentioned £1 million plus?

OP said six figure not seven figure.

The inheritance could be £100,000

Amazing amount but perhaps not life changing.

Could be used up very quickly and then there might be problems getting back on benefits once gone. No one knows how the welfare state may change in the time it would take to spend that down.

Could be used up very quickly and then there might be problems getting back on benefits

But they are using up tax payers funds when not needed. If you are fortunate enough to have money in the bank then you don't need benefit. They are not there for greedy people trying to cheat the system. The benefits system might be more generous to those in genuine need if there were less cheats and liars.

@Fireflygal

Could be used up very quickly and then there might be problems getting back on benefits

But they are using up tax payers funds when not needed. If you are fortunate enough to have money in the bank then you don't need benefit. They are not there for greedy people trying to cheat the system. The benefits system might be more generous to those in genuine need if there were less cheats and liars.

The amount of benefits claimed fraudulently is incredibly low.

If the OP can legally make a change to the will then that's the part that matters. The LEGAL element. (Which will include working out if it counts as deprivation of assets)

The main point of my post was that other PPs seem to have mixed up a seven figure inheritance (£1 million plus) with a six figure inheritance (six figures starts at £100,000) and they are very different beasts.

The main point of my post was that other PPs seem to have mixed up a seven figure inheritance (£1 million plus) with a six figure inheritance (six figures starts at £100,000) and they are very different beasts.
Not if it’s £900,000

@ChloeDecker

The main point of my post was that other PPs seem to have mixed up a seven figure inheritance (£1 million plus) with a six figure inheritance (six figures starts at £100,000) and they are very different beasts. Not if it’s £900,000

It could even be as high as £999,999 (so only £1 off the seven figures) that's true but people need to recognise that it starts as "low" as £100,000.

Again as long as the OP finds out about legal options WHICH INCLUDES consideration of deprivation of assets than that's what matters.

(PS Low = £100,000 not to me personally! That's a massive sum of money.)

@Fireflygal

Could be used up very quickly and then there might be problems getting back on benefits

But they are using up tax payers funds when not needed. If you are fortunate enough to have money in the bank then you don't need benefit. They are not there for greedy people trying to cheat the system. The benefits system might be more generous to those in genuine need if there were less cheats and liars.

They aren't using up taxpayers funds when they are unneeded. They dont have money in the bank and they wish to continue not having money in the bank.

Someone else may choose differently, but the fundamental issues are

1. No one can force someone else to accept money they don't want, and there are legal mechanisms to ensure that.
2. If someone has less than a certain amount of savings, they are entitled to state benefits.

There is no "cheating", no "lying" no "using taxpayer funds" because taxpayer funds are not used for government spending, and they are not "not needed" because the OP is in need of care and legally entitled to it.

I think the problem here is that people think that the money that you pay in taxes is used by the government to pay for things. This is simply not how state funding works.

Government spending comes from the issuance of government bonds. The interest and repayment of those bonds is what tax receipts are used for.

About 2.5x as much of this years tax revenue is being spent on debt servicing of the test and trace system (£36bn)as is being paid on the debt servicing of last years adult social care bill (£16bn).

Taxpayers should certainly be angry, and by god are there a whole load of cheats and liars around, but the OP claiming what she is entitled to, is not such a case.

(apologies for getting my 6 and 7 figs confused)

I am reading several incredibly judgemental posts the tone of advice is unnecessarily harsh I originally mentioned the use of a Deed of Variation because several posters gave incorrect advice.
There is insufficient information regarding the OPs situation to offer definitive advice for example oPs options will vary depending on The total amount of inheritance as will the OPs current Housing situation, does she rent and does she claim housing benefit? If so would her inheritance be sufficient to purchase a home suitable for her needs.

Welfare rights adviser here. All my instincts tell me that if you "disclaimed" the inheritance, it would be treated as deprivation of assets. To me, that's the same as giving it away.

A deed of variation may well be treated differently.

Someone I know inherited a large six-figure sum while on benefits. She was executor of the will. She did a deed of variation that put the money into a discretionary trust, of which she and her daughters were the beneficiaries, to protect her right to benefits. Trustees were her brother and his wife, who had inherited a similar sum.

Another family member got the hump about it and reported her. The DWP suspended all her benefits, investigated, found that she had done nothing wrong and reinstated them.

I would rather like to know their thinking. I can't see a significant difference myself.