Money given because of abuse - and income support

[Manda25]

Sorry if i am a little sketchy.

A 19 yr old on IS, housing and something like DLA (that's not what she called it but is a non means tested benefit of this sort) has been awarded a large amount of money for the horrendous abuse they suffered as a child.

I know little about the benefits system but i am guessing that until the money is spent they will have to come off the benefits?? Will they check what the money was spent on (want proof??) ....

i am all for people with money not being able to claim benefits ....except in this case (or cases like this) it seems so unfair...they didn't ask to be abused ....and would like to have the money for a rainy day ...to get counseling etc.

Anyone know a way round this??

never heard of this...however,do you think its a community care grant?

oh crossed wires....yes,they need to inform income support

The money came from the courts or someone like that

they would need to let them know, but it probably wont affect their IS. is it from the criminal wotsit, to aknowledge what they went through

u are aloud £6,000 before it affects IS anything between 6,000 and 16,000 they take £1 for every £250 upto £16,000,anything over that not entitled to income support

mx

Normally, if it's criminal injuries money for someone who lacks capacity it is put into a discretionary trust. This way, entitlement to benefits remains.

I know a bit about this, but not enough to give you definite advice. If the person gets DLA, you should contact an organisation that specialises in the type of disability the person has. Many have a company lawyer who would be able to advise you.

Thanks you all for your advice. The money is over 20k and her disability is MH - if that's any use.

Does she have capacity? Instead of having the money, she could have the courts put it into a special needs trust, that way it does not count as her money / savings for benefit purposes and she still qualifies for benefits.

I don't know about trusts in general, just special needs trusts because my eldest has one.

She would have had a lawyer representing her in her case for compensation, surely. That lawyer should also be advising her about the money, it's part of the job.

In some cases, the benefits agency has a right of recovery over the compensation money; i.e., it takes some of its benefit money back out of the lump sum. But it totally depends on what the compensation is actually for - I mean, if it's to compensate her for medical expenses incurred as a result of the mental health problem, or something else.

She needs to talk to her lawyer, or a lawyer, about this. There's too many variables for internet advice.

Oh, and she would have to go to the trustees for them to get her anything she wanted from the money.

And you should NEVER make all the trustees family members! Always have a professional trustee! And always 2 signatories on all cheques no matter how small.

Most family members will only ever act in the persons best interests, but you can never know who might give in to the temptation to borrow, maybe with full intention of paying back, but before you know it, the money's gone.

Yes, T - that confused me with my son's case. He had to pay back - I am SURE it was DLA! but that's not a means tested benefit. I couldn't understand it but the solicitor insisted it was right.

Well, I'm an insurance lawyer in Australia, so neither the law nor the benefits schemes are identical, but here's the principle:

If, e.g., you are injured by someone else's fault, and can't work, you have to give up work and go on a disability pension. That's government benefits paid to support people who can't work by reason of health, right?

So then you sue the wrongdoer, and they pay you a lump sum of compensation. What they are compensating you for is the fact that you have lost all that money in medical expenses and lost income due to the injury. Compensation is exactly that; it's not a way to say sorry, it's there to compensate for actual material loss.

So then the government says, well now you've been paid twice. First we paid your medical expenses and salary, and now the wrongdoer has paid it again, you can't get it twice, we want our bit back. So they take their bit back.

Compensation at common law exceeds benefits, though, so you usually end up with some leftover. Not always, to be honest; I've seen longrunning cases, where by the time the Medical Expense Benefit people and the Income Support Benefit people (I'm making up the nameS) are both paid back, there's nothing left for the plaintiff.

But that's the principle. Can't be paid twice.

Yes, that's pretty much what they said. can't be paid twice.

But supposing he got the money on the day of his injury (which left him with a permenant disability).

He'd still have been entitled to DLA because DLA is not a means tested benefit.

So he'd have had the compensation and been paid the DLA from the start too. Because DLA is paid regardless of the money you have in the bank, whether you are employed or whatever.

See my confusion?

I would really check with the benefits agencies.

There ARE circumstances where lump sums are not taken into account in means tested benefits. It could be one of those old strange rules that they have, that they won't know about until they look deep into the rule books.

Ask, then get them to double check. You can do this anonymously of course.

Yep, but the compensation would have been less, probably.

We work out compensation (roughly) as

Past medical expenses + likely future medical expenses + past economic loss + future economic loss + a bunch of other things irrelevant to the discussion.

So if it was the day of the injury, we'd have paid him less, because there'd be no past loss.

Yes, they said that too (about the losses, not about if they'd paid him the day of the injury Was a birth injury btw )

But past medical expenses would simply have become future medical expenses because the past would have become the future but it would still exist as costs, iyswim. Past economic loss would become future economic loss, same reason. See what I mean?

Because his injury was a birth injury, it was always about what he would be prevented from doing his whole life. Whether that was a bit past / most future or all future, the losses are the same.

So I still don't get it.