Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
juvenal

Can't Trouser Flat Sale Cash And Still Draw Full Benefits.

Recommended Posts

In the doctor's this morning and in comes a middle-aged guy on crutches. The practice nurse clearly knew him well as a patient, and was very friendly towards him.

He told her his flat was on the market at £109K, but he'd already come down by £10K. He then said that Social Services had told him that if he sold, and simply trousered the dough, his benefits would be seriously affected. Someone had advised him he would have to buy somewhere else to live, possibly some shared purchase arrangement.

Crutches man clearly found this perplexing and irritating. He'd thought he could sell up, pocket a big lump, then get benefits to pay for everything as usual. Including private rented housing.

He genuinely thought he had been hard done by. The nurse made a few encouraging noises, but I couldn't tell what she really thought.

Edited by juvenal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's how it is for many people unfortunately. Though many criticise the system for being too generous, perhaps we should use this moment to reflect on the fact that the system doesn't allow this man to have his cake and eat it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the doctor's this morning and in comes a middle-aged guy on crutches. The practice nurse clearly knew him well as a patient, and was very friendly towards him.

He told her his flat was on the market at £109K, but he'd already come down by £10K. He then said that Social Services had told him that if he sold, and simply trousered the dough, his benefits would be seriously affected. Someone had advised him he would have to buy somewhere else to live, possibly some shared purchase arrangement.

Crutches man clearly found this perplexing and irritating. He'd thought he could sell up, pocket a big lump, then get benefits to pay for everything as usual. Including private rented housing.

He genuinely thought he had been hard done by. The nurse made a few encouraging noises, but I couldn't tell what she really thought.

I've seriously considered buying a place for this reason alone. Yet another reason not to hold cash for a rainy day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, the property owning democracy.

Own a £1.5million mansion outright. Full welfare entitlement

Have a £16,001 rainy day fund getting 0.5% interest and nothing else to your name. No welfare for you, you capitalist pig.

Obviously there should be a limit on the value of your assets, including a home, in order to receive assistance and it should be for a limited period before you are required to sell up and live on the capital until matters are put right. Can't see why others should pay for you indeterminately when you have capital that's tied up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've disabled and saving to try and buy a home. Escalating prices meant that I could not do so.

Ended up renting from a couple. The husband was long term disabled. Had full council help including a paid carer. Their strategy was to keep buying property so they remained under the cash limit for means tested benefits. Worked very well for them. The wife had a sports car that her husband couldn't get into and she used his disabled badge.

Worked less well so for me obviously. I'm working when physically able to, supporting myself and struggling to buy. Renting very hard.

Edited by Flopsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wife was telling me about a scheme that is being introduced in Massachusettes (she works there). Single Mums are being made to go back to school for two years (still on benefits and school paid for). If they don't attend then benefits cease. After the two years they are on their own but have a diploma in whatever. Can't see it catching on in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've disabled and saving to try and buy a home. Escalating prices meant that I could not do so.

Ended up renting from a couple. The husband was long term disabled. Had full council help including a paid carer. Their strategy was to keep buying property so they remained under the cash limit for means tested benefits. Worked very well for them. The wife had a sports car that her husband couldn't get into and she used his disabled badge.

Worked less well so for me obviously. I'm working when physically able to, supporting myself and struggling to buy. Renting very hard.

I am sorry for you. These people should be named and shamed as they are just common thieves-best thing is to list the assets, put an upper limit on them and if they are not liquid by xxxx date then you still get the benefits but as a loan at say 5% interest (rolled up). When you sell the asset (s) you repay the loan. Hey the guvmint could even make a bob or two with this scheme. Second thoughts make it 10% IR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seriously considered buying a place for this reason alone. Yet another reason not to hold cash for a rainy day.

Deprivation of capital rules could apply if they thought it was the sole reason for purchasing the property. Filling the cellar with tins of beans and pasta might be a good idea too in such a circumstance. As far as I can tell holding cash means you'll get shafted. :(

I've disabled and saving to try and buy a home. Escalating prices meant that I could not do so.

Ended up renting from a couple. The husband was long term disabled. Had full council help including a paid carer. Their strategy was to keep buying property so they remained under the cash limit for means tested benefits. Worked very well for them. The wife had a sports car that her husband couldn't get into and she used his disabled badge.

Worked less well so for me obviously. I'm working when physically able to, supporting myself and struggling to buy. Renting very hard.

Do the rules about property not apply here - as I understood it only your own home (not BTLs) was exempt when means testing?

Edited by rented

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there, my council doesn't means test for the carer part. I'll have another look at the benefits part. DLA is not means tested but I'll try and work out what else they were getting. Also if the BTLs' had been put in their childrens names. Wish I had done a better job at the time but it was when my other-half was fighting cancer.

Edited by Flopsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wife was telling me about a scheme that is being introduced in Massachusettes (she works there). Single Mums are being made to go back to school for two years (still on benefits and school paid for). If they don't attend then benefits cease. After the two years they are on their own but have a diploma in whatever. Can't see it catching on in the UK.

That's because we have engineered ourselves in to a situation which means ultimately that people will literally starve to death unless you give them benefits. It doesn't matter what way you try and cut or remove benefits people know that ultimately they will have to be given something.

In the situation above, how long is it before one of these mothers has a child that dies because it is malnourished?

For me, and I'm deadly serious about this, we need to bring back the workhouses. You get a bed, 2 meals a day, a watered down alco pop and that's your lot. Nobody is forced to go to the workhouse, if you can support yourself you can do what you like, but nobody other than the short term unemployed gets a penny in actual cash money. These places will not be hovels, just a basic clean environment which provides a roof and food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry for you. These people should be named and shamed as they are just common thieves-best thing is to list the assets, put an upper limit on them and if they are not liquid by xxxx date then you still get the benefits but as a loan at say 5% interest (rolled up). When you sell the asset (s) you repay the loan. Hey the guvmint could even make a bob or two with this scheme. Second thoughts make it 10% IR.

They are gaming the system - same as MP's did for the last 13 years.

And this is why Socialism never works - people are not stupid - they will not work hard if the state then takes money away from them

Why should they?

On the whole people behave entirely rationally and pragmatically - like single Mum's for instance

It isn't people who are the problem it is the system - Hate the system not the people.

:blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the people in my disabled group would be more than happy with a clean, workhouse with food. There are times in my life I would have really appreciated something like that.

If we got medical care there, then a big bonus for some of my group. Unable to leave their homes they rely on families for basic care and cannot get to NHS hospitals. There is no way of enforcing rights to medical care in the UK as lawyers won't take their cases. It probably costs more to maintain people in prison.

I presume though that this would be expensive to set up and maintain for the disabled, especially if they had the same conditions as prisons. Probably cheaper to pay people who rely on families, the benefits that they currently get?

Edited by Flopsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And another one, from Money Clinic letters, in the latest issue of Saga Magazine...

" Q. Because of ill-health I need to sell my house and move to a bungalow. I could not afford to buy one, so I'm now renting and getting Housing Benefit towards the rent, as I have only £6K in savings. After clearing the outstanding mortgage, I expect to get back about £105,000. Would that stop me getting Housing Benefit in future?'"

Beggars belief that someone actually expects to trouser £105K while the taxpayer keeps them in a bungalow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So someone who works for 25years contributing to NI each month and saving hard to eventually own they own property. Then one day they suddenly find themselves jobless and find that the system won't provide, bar a basic minimum, because they have too much savings.

Does this sound fair to you? It certainly doesn't to me. In fact, once again, the hard -working savers who contribute to the system are side-lined in favour of the dossers who have never contributed a penny. If your home insurance provider refused to pay out for the new roof because you had too much in savings you would wonder why you had bothered paying any premiums in the first place! I am not arguing that those who haven't contributed should get less, but those who have, should be entitled to the same.

Although I totally disagree with defrauding the system, such as the couple described above buying up property, I do think that the system needs to be a radical overhaul. And I say this having never taken a penny to date from the system, but I am starting to feel extremely resentful of the amount I am paying in, whilst being aware that it is only a system that works for those who don't pay in a penny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not arguing that those who haven't contributed should get less, but those who have, should be entitled to the same.

They are being treated the same,

if a dosser has savings they won't (roundy) get benefits until the savings are depleted.

if a non-feckless ex-worker has savings they won't (roundly) get benefits until the savings are depleted.

if a dosser has no savings they will get benefits.

if a feckless ex-worker has no savings they will get benefits.

So, savings is assessed, then decision on benefit was made >> rule is no savings get benefits.

I have no sympathy for someone moaning because they have a large cash profit from hpi (inadvertantly profiting through the enslavement of future generations) affecting their overall financial assessment for benefits.

There should be no concept of entitlement and expectation around benefits; benefits should be provided as a emergency form of providing sustinence and shelter - it's not a case of 'what you have put in' means you should get 'yours'. If you have a nest egg and find yourself out of work, you are not in an 'emergency' situation, so the benefits should not apply, and your nest egg should be exactly that.

The level of benefits paid are far too high, which has created the bizarre sense of entitlement within the underclass families who have opted out of working life. Cut benefit to shit, only providing shelter\food\Clothing and distribute this benefit through coupans, with only a tiny cash amount for pissing away - and you will soon see that underclass become motivated to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The level of benefits paid are far too high, which has created the bizarre sense of entitlement within the underclass families who have opted out of working life. Cut benefit to shit, only providing shelter\food\Clothing and distribute this benefit through coupans, with only a tiny cash amount for pissing away - and you will soon see that underclass become motivated to work.

That's possibly the most practical solution but all it would do is create a black market for the coupons i.e. £10 of food coupons gets you £5 in cash. The other argument against them of course is that it causes stigma, but can't see that's a problem myself, people who choose a live of benefits have next to no shame anyway.

Ultimately what you need to do is create a situation where getting benefits provides the basics with regards to human rights, no more and certainly no less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 239 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.