Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

£100k + Universal Credit?

278 replies

NeverGoingToGiveYouUpButIMayLetYouDown · 23/09/2025 15:44

I want to claim UC as I am no longer able to work due to a progressive illness.

Husband and I are divorcing. I owed him money, from a verbally-agreed loan between us both, so I transferred money to him three months ago. Plus, some of his savings were in my account, so I also transferred this back to him three months ago.

Will Universal Credit look unfavourably at all this - that I transferred £100k to him, and have very little (less than £16k) left over for myself? I have never claimed benefits before, so I am nervous this will be seen as deprivation of capital, despite occuring prior to me making a claim.

OP posts:
Marelli · 28/09/2025 12:39

Well I know this is a few days old but after reading some of these responses..wow, just wow.

I know the following doesn't apply to every comment but my goodness it applies to so so many & that is just quite sad.
.
Straight away responses starting with twisting what the OP said, adding in words that weren't there..
Like, how convenient that she is left with "slightly less than £16,000 in savings" yet NOWHERE did she say she had SLIGHTLY LESS or JUST UNDER £16,000, the OP stated she had very little & "less than £16,000" that can mean anything from £1, why assume that means just under? Is it because there was some big amounts of money mentioned, did that blur the vision, do people want to believe that anyone that finds themself in a position of needing to claim benefits (especially if they were previously in a very financially comfortable situation) that they are actually lying, being fraudulent?

Then where is the common sense, who on earth gives a huge amount of money to the man they are divorcing to fraudenltly claim benefits, Or post about it on a public forum, I mean really?!!! I'd be super surprised if anyone can say they know someone that gave all their money to the man they are divorcing & probably despise at that time, so they can go through the humiliating process of claiming UC.

Then the questioning about him having his savings in her account, as if that's dodgy? Splitting savings is common to utilise each person's tax allowances when one person earns more than the other. I'm guessing at the time he put it in, there was no thought of divorce (even if he was having an affair, as im sure he thought he could have his cake) It was more common years ago that men worked & the wives stayed home, the wives didn't have income to put into savings accounts, but they would still have accounts in their names, for whatever tax saving purpose was relavant to the situation. Nothing unusual about that, nor is there anything unusual about a relationship breaking up & one of the parties saying "I want all my money/art collection/jewellery/gifts back" even if it isn't technically theirs, particularly people acting like sulky kids, like ones that have cheated & been busted and act like it's the other partners fault, or have a new maybe younger woman who they want to impress with lavish gifts.

But what really is the most disheartening & disappointing is that it's pretty obvious that there has been financial control here & so many disregarded what was in front of them, the pretty much obvious. Shameful, when we hear so much about as women we should be supporting each other, helping each other up, yet here they are kicking a person when they are down.

Though OP states he was never abusive, there are subtle things in what she has typed which indicate he may have been emotionally abusive & controlling in a very subtle clever way, people dont always recognise it, especially if it's someone they met when they were young & have then been with for many years, what do they have to compare it too.

I suspect the soon to be ex husband, was the type that his money was just his & his wife was to be grateful for all that he did, gave & financed so that she could mainly stay at home bringing up the children & only need to work part time - there are men prefer the wife to be home for control, the wife then has little life outside that home & they have to rely on the husband for money, the husband the main provider, the keeper, the controller. He is still keeping that power & control in the divorce, thats how I expect he views & uses money, he feels she now owes him. He feels he deserves more because he still has a family, the narrative that their children being adults she doesn't need (deserve) things like a family home. You can tell in what she is saying about the settlements that he is the one in the know, probably paying the solicitor a little extra to be favourable to him too, because he can, he is calling the shots using the OPs lack of knowledge to his favour, I expect his tactic would be to eventually convince her that it's better to settle out of court, that she can have more that way.

To end where I started, I am in disbelief that I read so much vitriol aimed at the OP, such a lack of empathy.
What a world we live in when people disregard facts, twist things forming a narrative that then is used to attack a person, a person that is experiencing a low point in their life, struggling with health, divorce, loss, financial worry & uncertainty. As if things arent difficult, confusing & scary enough, a person then has to read all that.

Weegiewarrior · 28/09/2025 16:15

Marelli · 28/09/2025 12:39

Well I know this is a few days old but after reading some of these responses..wow, just wow.

I know the following doesn't apply to every comment but my goodness it applies to so so many & that is just quite sad.
.
Straight away responses starting with twisting what the OP said, adding in words that weren't there..
Like, how convenient that she is left with "slightly less than £16,000 in savings" yet NOWHERE did she say she had SLIGHTLY LESS or JUST UNDER £16,000, the OP stated she had very little & "less than £16,000" that can mean anything from £1, why assume that means just under? Is it because there was some big amounts of money mentioned, did that blur the vision, do people want to believe that anyone that finds themself in a position of needing to claim benefits (especially if they were previously in a very financially comfortable situation) that they are actually lying, being fraudulent?

Then where is the common sense, who on earth gives a huge amount of money to the man they are divorcing to fraudenltly claim benefits, Or post about it on a public forum, I mean really?!!! I'd be super surprised if anyone can say they know someone that gave all their money to the man they are divorcing & probably despise at that time, so they can go through the humiliating process of claiming UC.

Then the questioning about him having his savings in her account, as if that's dodgy? Splitting savings is common to utilise each person's tax allowances when one person earns more than the other. I'm guessing at the time he put it in, there was no thought of divorce (even if he was having an affair, as im sure he thought he could have his cake) It was more common years ago that men worked & the wives stayed home, the wives didn't have income to put into savings accounts, but they would still have accounts in their names, for whatever tax saving purpose was relavant to the situation. Nothing unusual about that, nor is there anything unusual about a relationship breaking up & one of the parties saying "I want all my money/art collection/jewellery/gifts back" even if it isn't technically theirs, particularly people acting like sulky kids, like ones that have cheated & been busted and act like it's the other partners fault, or have a new maybe younger woman who they want to impress with lavish gifts.

But what really is the most disheartening & disappointing is that it's pretty obvious that there has been financial control here & so many disregarded what was in front of them, the pretty much obvious. Shameful, when we hear so much about as women we should be supporting each other, helping each other up, yet here they are kicking a person when they are down.

Though OP states he was never abusive, there are subtle things in what she has typed which indicate he may have been emotionally abusive & controlling in a very subtle clever way, people dont always recognise it, especially if it's someone they met when they were young & have then been with for many years, what do they have to compare it too.

I suspect the soon to be ex husband, was the type that his money was just his & his wife was to be grateful for all that he did, gave & financed so that she could mainly stay at home bringing up the children & only need to work part time - there are men prefer the wife to be home for control, the wife then has little life outside that home & they have to rely on the husband for money, the husband the main provider, the keeper, the controller. He is still keeping that power & control in the divorce, thats how I expect he views & uses money, he feels she now owes him. He feels he deserves more because he still has a family, the narrative that their children being adults she doesn't need (deserve) things like a family home. You can tell in what she is saying about the settlements that he is the one in the know, probably paying the solicitor a little extra to be favourable to him too, because he can, he is calling the shots using the OPs lack of knowledge to his favour, I expect his tactic would be to eventually convince her that it's better to settle out of court, that she can have more that way.

To end where I started, I am in disbelief that I read so much vitriol aimed at the OP, such a lack of empathy.
What a world we live in when people disregard facts, twist things forming a narrative that then is used to attack a person, a person that is experiencing a low point in their life, struggling with health, divorce, loss, financial worry & uncertainty. As if things arent difficult, confusing & scary enough, a person then has to read all that.

Couldn’t agree more. Some of the responses were disgusting.

Boomer55 · 28/09/2025 16:54

No, UC dept aren’t going to swallow all this. You need to get proper legal advice about a settlement.. If it’s over the UC threshold, it will be needed to support you.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page