I Read This And Felt Sick....
|
Along a similar vein happened to my grandmother. In her later years suffering from dementia, she had to live in a care home. Between her and my grandfather (who died 14 years previously) had a house (which was signed over to my father and uncle at the time of my grandfather's death) and about 50k of savings.
Despite years of pleading with her to spend and enjoy it, she continued to save. Until she went to the home. Because of the savings, she had to pay for the care. This in itself, I have no issue with. However, the unfair part of that in my view is, she got no benefit of her savings. The care she received was as good as the care others with no savings (which again I dont begrudge). Apparently if she had spent the money 'rapidly' in the 7 years prior to her going into the home, the authorities would have pursued this. She paid her taxes and national insurance for this, yet was effectively taxed again. Even when she passed away, her savings were just slightly over the threshold and therefore was still paying til her death. The only positive if you could suggest one, was that she wasn't aware her savings were dwindling. As far as the family and I heritence went,no one went without, however e everyone felt the same as me, she earned it, not us. It was hers for her benefit which she did not receive. Sent from my SM-A600FN using Tapatalk |
why, because she is old or because she saved and has now had it taken away?
on the face of it, it seems wrong macafee2 |
Yes, it's wrong, obscene, dreadful etc. but to change it you need to get to the people responsible for it and who have the power to change it.
Find the Law Makers (aka Politicians) who make the law and set the figures. And get them changed. At the opposite end of the scale there's the big business paying a pittance in tax - that's wrong too but what they do is legal so it's the LAW that needs changing. Andy. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Let’s hope it gets the publicity it deserves now the MSM have got hold of it! |
Quote:
The rules are something like this - but I haven’t checked them out for years so things may have changed a bit. Savings between £6000 and £16000 start affecting certain benefits. Over £16000 all of it is assessed - between £6000 and £16000 it is on a sliding scale. Over £16000 each £250 is deemed to generate £4.30(?) of income and this is reduced from the benefit amount. Pro rata between £6k and £16k. It’s archaic and is often viciously applied. This system has been in existence for decades - and all governments of all colours have gone along with it. |
i think that you can have up to 6000 savings without having any benefits stopped anything over 16000 you wont be able to collect any benefits except pip ( personnel independent payment) as this is not means tested rgds mark
|
We are not encouraged to be careful or save any more, just spend,spend,spend on all the useless tat to put money in the pockets of the shareholders of the big businesses. None of my family (close and distant) have ever taken a penny in benefits and all dad's savings and property went to pay for his care in later years. The guy in the room next to dad, never worked a day in his life and got his care for free! They even paid for his funeral in the end!:shrug:
|
The rules look very complicated, but I expect that they have been deliberately written that way so people fall into the trap !
|
Quote:
Things are very different now but these rules haven’t really changed. The worst case I heard of was a Down’s syndrome chap who was managing to live on his own with the support of his parents. His Grandfather set up a Will Trust for him so that when the grandfather died - about £40k was placed in a Trust for this Down’s Syndrome chap. So it was in Trust, so it wasn’t now owned by him - it belonged to the Trust which was set up for his long term benefit and so should not be included in any calculation of Capital owned. But HCC did exactly that and this Down’s Syndrome chap lost all his benefits and ended up having to move back with his parents who had worked so hard to make their son as independent as possible. It all happened because he innocently said that his grandfather had left him £40k and HCC took the word of a Down’s Syndrome vulnerable person and did not do the proper due diligence checks. It was reversed but it took many months and stalling by HCC - the belief was that they realised they had made a huge mistake and self preservation took over rather than any inherent honesty whereby hands were held up and a “sorry we made a mistake” apology given. I suspect that under today’s rules a council who did this would be guilty of ignoring current “Safeguarding Rules” - something that could possibly apply in the OP case as the report says this lady has learning difficulties. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:20. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 2006-2023, The Rover 75 & MG ZT Owners Club Ltd