Does the probate office inform DWP / do DWP check probate records?

[Thedayb4youcame]

I have spent several months executing a will. The solicitors did all the legal side (probate, bank accounts, property transfers etc) and I did all the running around & admin.

Several beneficiaries are on means-tested benefits which will be compromised by their inheritance. Some beneficiaries have taken their share of a property rather than sell it and taking the money.

The total of their individual inheritances are far greater than the total allowed by the DWP for those on means tested benefits, although the actual cash payout is between the two thresholds (it's the share of the property that bumps it up).

I have no idea if any of the beneficiaries intend to inform the DWP of any or all of their inheritance, and this is not my problem. However, it does not stop me worrying about their future.

I have been all over the internet, and nowhere can I find anything that says the solicitor or whoever can proactively inform the DWP - it seems that the claimants have to do this, because the only option for a 3rd party is to log a potential fraud investigation application. This is despite me reading that the DWP regularly check probate records.

Has anyone had experience of this? If so, how long did it take the DWP to contact the claimants?

Thanks in advance.

A pound or two, or more than £100K over? That's what we are talking about here.

I'm not sure I get the reference to a general election - I would be glad if you could explain.

It could be perceived as that.....

If you must let them know that they need to tell DWP. That's your duty discharged and unless they have learning disabilities it's all their responsibility.

I do appreciate your words, thank you.

Fact is though, we're not talking a small amount of money or at least assets - it is a vast amount. It is the small amount of actual "hard cash" that will cause the issue, as they will have very little money on a day to day level, which is why I can't understand why they took the property as opposed to selling it.

@Thedayb4youcame I think the poster who mentioned the General Election was referencing the fact that there have been a lot of posts encouraging "benefits bashing" recently. Insinuating those of us on benefits, particularly disability benefits, are work shy, dishonest scroungers, which seems to be the opinion of the Tory Party. It's almost as if people want to whip up hatred for those of us on benefits and blame the state of the country's finances solely on us (not suggesting your post is one of those).

Oh I see. Thank you for this. No, that's not my intention at all and I never knew this to be the case on here. It is simply the timeline of events.

I do appreciate your dilemma op but as others have said as executor all you can do is follow the rules. I get that you are concerned about the impact of inheritance and the scenario that someone blows the lot and then has to repay benefits because they didn’t declare. But all you can do is point that out to them.

I agree that it sounds like you have done what you reasonably can to alert them. If you think about it, it would be unreasonable to expect the executor of a will to have knowledge of the benefits status of individual beneficiaries (although it is not surprising you might if they are relatives, it is easy to think of situations where an executor would not). Therefore it would be unreasonable to put a duty on an executor to make reports to the DWP. Because solicitors are regulated professionals, they might indeed have a duty to warn recipients that "if" they are in receipt of benefits their position might change, which sounds like it has happened here; and any more again I would question as to its reasonableness.

Good luck supporting your relatives as far as it is reasonable for you to do so. I hope there doesn't end up too much fall-out!

If they have more than 6k in assets then they need to declare it. If they have 16k they will lose all entitlement. If they get found out they could be made to pay all the benefits back since they got the money. But it's not definite that they'll be found out.
Anyway, it's their own moral dilemma to deal with. Technically they'll be doing fraud if they keep taking the benefits money if they've over 16k. But that's on them, not you.

Do you know for sure that the benefits they get are actually means tested?

@yeesh Excellent point!

Yes I do. Very much so. As do the beneficiaries. I have never been in a situation like this before, but the bitterness that has been shown when they found out what they have been left and will be expected to stop claiming benefits was something else altogether. And it wasn't me who said it had to stop, they made their own inquiries on that front.

As a PP said about their situation giving someone a new lease of life off benefits, this may have been the motivation beyond the person who left them the inheritance, but the fact it means benefits will stop has not been well received.

Yes, this was the information I was reading. The inheritances are way, way above the £16k limit. But as you say, it's the "will they find out?" part that I think some people are willing to gamble on. In this instance, there are clear records of what has being received as it's gone through probate, but yes, it does seem to all hinge on how long one government department takes to liaise with the other, if indeed at all.

@Thedayb4youcame HMRC are very closely linked to DWP, so potentially once it becomes tax related it could trigger an investigation. But I'm sure plenty of people do get away with it. If they are prepared to have to pay it back and deal with the shame and potential criminal conviction, then it's really down to them if they want to risk it or not. Totally from a moral pov of course they should own up as soon as they have the other cash.

Thank you for that @BobbyBiscuits .

In this instance, there is no HMRC involvement, either from the side of the person who died, or that of any beneficiaries. The part I can't get my head around is the irony that the means-tested benefit is the housing benefit component of UC, which in itself is no longer needed as the beneficiaries now have their own home, and as such there is no one to pay rent to.

My curiosity is not, of course, to confused with any unhappiness or grudge against those who are claiming (I have neither), rather having never been in the situation as executor before, and having always been in situations where benefits were never applicable to my situation, the whole thing has been something of a learning curve for me.

I do, however, still find it most odd that so much emphasis is placed on the claimant to tell the DWP, rather than them having systems in place that work more closely. It's not a criticism, it's simply a case of "Oh, ok. Well I never.".

@Thedayb4youcame two of my main clients were HMRC and the DWP. Put it this way, they don't employ tax or finance experts, or employment experts. I am now on benefits as my career gave me a nervous breakdown!
So yeah, the government are not going to do things well in terms of guiding people's moral compass. It would be pretty rich if they tried, lol.

@Thedayb4youcame

"The part I can't get my head around is the irony that the means-tested benefit is the housing benefit component of UC"

Just a small point, but it's not just the housing costs of UC that are means tested. Everything is.

Effectively, UC works out what your total entitlement would be if you had no income and no capital. It then deducts from that total, amounts depending on how much you earn and how much capital you have.

If, after doing that calculation, you are still entitled to any UC then that is how much you get. If the deductions are greater than the benefits you're entitled to then you get nothing.

They apply this to the total amount of UC, not to individual elements such as housing costs.

I am the executor of my DMs will. My stepfather is still alive, lives in a care home and has severe dementia. I have Deputyship for his financial affairs. In brief, Deputyship has enabled me to sell my DMs home. SF had a financial assessment completed when he went into care after DM died and the property was disregarded as he only owned 20% and it was a low value property, so in effect his care fees were paid for by the LA apart from his pension going towards them.
Upon selling the house, I notified the LA finance team and gave them all the details. I knew the money would take him over the limit for becoming a self funder.
I had a further conversation the other day with the LA finance team who told me they had received the HMRC notification of the monies my SF received from the sale of the property, although I hadn’t actually notified HMRC. It seems that the solicitor has to report the inheritance payments to HMRC from the sale of a property. So information is shared between gov departments.

OP, can you explain why you didn’t sell the property but chose to split the ownership? That does look to me like deliberate deprivation of assets that you’ve sanctioned. I my Sfs situation, the house was disregarded as it had been owned as TIC for many years. In your case, the beneficiaries have deliberately asked for the house to not be sold.

Also, for those saying basically don’t ‘snitch’ on the beneficiaries, explain to me why taxpayers should fund beneficiaries who are no longer eligible fort hose benefits. They could have inherited £100k. Should they still receive UC?

The decision as to whether to sell the property or not rested with you as executor. It’s not down to the beneficiaries. By not selling it you have tied them into a very complex arrangement.

I'd report them. I don't understand stand why you wouldn't. Would you report a thief? I would.

It's a shame when dishonest people get away with claiming benefits.

The OP has to act in the best interests of the beneficiaries. It would appear that the beneficiaries have expressed their opinion to the OP that they believe it is in their best interests to not sell the property.

Yes, the OP could ignore the expressed wishes of the beneficiaries and sold the house but would that be in their best interests?

Neither of us know the full situation of the beneficiaries and what may be their best interests.

Effectively the house has been 'sold' to the beneficiaries, using their inheritance. A step has just been removed from the process which makes sense if the beneficiaries wish to spend their inheritance on property and on this specific (family) property. It's not an error on the OP's behalf.

@Another2Cats

Thank you for this, and sorry, I should have made it clearer...Yes, all of UC is means-tested, what I should have made clear was that in the scenario I was writing about, the only means-tested benefit that is being claimed and therefore will be compromised, is the housing benefit part of the UC.

But yes, I agree fully, UC as a whole is entirely means-tested.

how well do you get on with this relative OP? how close?

@Soontobe60

"OP, can you explain why you didn’t sell the property but chose to split the ownership? That does look to me like deliberate deprivation of assets that you’ve sanctioned. I my Sfs situation, the house was disregarded as it had been owned as TIC for many years. In your case, the beneficiaries have deliberately asked for the house to not be sold."

The beneficiaries were left a share of a house, and there were no instructions by the deceased that it had to be sold, or lived in, or anything else for that matter. Legally, in every which way, there is no reason too why all the beneficiaries with a share in that house cannot take their share of the house to live in it either.

Deprivation of assets does not come into this, as no one has deprived themselves of any assets - the property still exists, and has to be declared to the DWP as being something they (the beneficiaries now own), which will reduce their ability to claim means-tested benefits in the same way having sold the house and taking the cash would.

If anything, it'll take far longer this way, as they may still own the house in years to come before having to sell it for (presumably) more that it's worth now, whereas a cash payout would have been used for rent and therefore been quickly depleted.

Are you on benefits op?