What is the savings threshold before claiming benefit?

I think I might become redundant I know that you need less then # saving to claim any benefit We have 3 bank accounts (my own +wifes personal + joint)
Combined they will just about clear what we owe to the mortgage Bit reluctant because that will leave us very short
What is the savings threshold before claiming benefit? When evaluating will I be expected to declare all 3 accounts or just mine?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

16,000
but there is a deduction from the benefit for sums in excess of 6,000

Most definately
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


But note that:
1) Contributions based JSA is not means tested so you get that regardless of capital, but for a limited period (6 months I think). And you may have to wait till any notice you are paid for expires, but you'll then get it for 6 months after that. Provided you have enough NI contributions, if you've been in work for the last few years you should be OK. (If you have pension income that can reduce contribution based JSA).
2) Tax credits ignore capital so you can get tax credits regardless of how much you have in savings. (though interest counts as income so could reduce your tax credits, but not by much unless you have a vast stash).
Is your mortgage flexible? Many are nowadays even if you didn't realise, eg all Nationwide mortgages are AFAIK. If it is you could pay down your mortgage now with your savings, then the money is there if you need it (you can "withdraw" overpayments), but it's not "savings" so won't disqualify you from benefits. BUT best not to leave this till after you're made redundant as there's a rule that if you "dispose" of savings in order to claim benefits they'll count the savings you disposed of. They don't usually do this if you pay off debt so should be OK, but safest is to do it before you get made redundant.
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
cheers for that
It's an offset mortguage and we can draw it all back out if we need the money
Can I confirm then that my wifes personal saving would affect my personal benefit claim?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Other than contributions based JSA (and some invalidity payments) benefit entitlement is based upon household income/savings.
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"tim...." wrote

That could prove problematic - how can someone know whether they're entitled to claim the benefit, if they don't know about all the income/savings of other members of the household?
What if the other members of the household won't tell them?!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Usually not "household" but self & partner. I don't think (for instance) kid's earnings are usually counted, or any adult lodgers etc.

Then they can't claim. They have to declare their partner's income and savings.
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Andy Pandy" wrote

"Andy Pandy" wrote

So then what happens if their partner lies and tells them that they don't have any substantial savings even though they do, and so the one without savings claims benefits?
Is the one who claimed the benefit a "benefit cheat", even though they claimed in good faith and had no knowledge of the partner's savings?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Then AIUI the partner is guilty of fraud.

Don't think so.
Tax credits require both partners to sign the form, think benefits are moving that way too.
--
Andy




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Andy Pandy" wrote

How? They didn't claim the benefit, that was the other partner! Especially if the partner with the savings didn't even know the other partner was claiming the benefit!!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

"moving that way" implies it's not there yet!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, Tim. But they provided false information for their partner's benefits claim.

It's been discussed on uk.gov.social-security. If you really want to know the answer, search the archives.
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Andy Pandy" wrote

But they only "provided false information" **to the partner**, *not* on a benefits application, and without any knowledge of what the partner was using that info for.
Are you really suggesting that it is fraud to lie to a partner?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

You're the one who's suggesting it's fraud - if you want to back that up, then search the archives yourself and let us all know. Otherwise you can't expect us to believe what you say...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Probably, if they knew that lie could lead to a false benefit claim.

Do you know what AIUI means? If not you can look that up as well. I'm "suggesting" it based on hazy memory of a u.g.s-s discussion a few years ago.

Why? You're the one who wants to know. I've made it clear I'm uncertain, and I've told you where to look for a more definitive answer. I don't really give a toss what the answer is.
--
Andy




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Surely you mean "would", rather than "could"?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Yep - I've probably known it for a lot longer than you!
"Andy Pandy" wrote

Don't need to.
"Andy Pandy" wrote

Well, IMHO if you're not sure, then you shouldn't say it was your understanding.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Not until this post you hadn't.
"Andy Pandy" wrote

That really says it all!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do I?

Well done! Then you'll probably know how to search usenets archives.

Why not? It is my understanding.

Indeed. Got the message yet? If you want really want a more definitive answer then I've told you where to look. But you don't, do you Timmy? You have no interest in the underlying issue at all and just want another opportunity for a pointless pedantic discussion where you can point out literal inconsistencies etc which have nothing to do with the underlying issue.
You remind me of Mr Logic from Viz.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Logic
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Well, if you really want me to decide for you, then I'll say: "Yes"!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

If you're uncertain about something (you've now said that you're uncertain about this), then you don't *have* an understanding of it.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Well, TBH I don't believe you enough to waste my time searching archives.
"Andy Pandy" wrote

Nah, I just like to point out your flaws - because you pretend you know everything!
So - have you paid for any deposits lately, with non-existent money that you haven't been putting onside?! ;-)
"Andy Pandy" wrote

Hehe - and here's you:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Know-It-All
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

See, this is an example of your "Mr Logic" literality.
"AIUI", or "it's my understanding that..." implies uncertainty. Nobody would use it before a fact they were certain of.

But you believe me enough to ask me the question in the first place? Riiight....

Oh I see - so I refer you elsewhere for the answer, I use AIUI which as above implies uncertainty, and I "pretend I know everything"? I take back the Mr Logic comparison, he's far more normal than you....
Ta ta Timmy, till next time. It's been fun.
--
Andy



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Andy Pandy" wrote

It actually implies a 'lower-than-usual' level of uncertainty, because it indicates that you have obtained an understanding of the subject, and that it is your belief that what you say is true.
"Andy Pandy" wrote

No-one can ever be *certain* of anything!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

It was a rhetorical question. Don't you understand those?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Saying "it might be in the archives - go search them" is hardly a satisfactory reference.
"Andy Pandy" wrote

No it doesn't - the 'U' stands for "Understand", *not* "Uncertain[ty]"!!
It therefore implies an *understanding* of it, which you later agreed you didn't have.
"Andy Pandy" wrote

Well, you did initially say that as you understood it, "the partner is guilty of fraud". Only *after* I responded to that, did you come clean and admit that you were uncertain.
"Andy Pandy" wrote

You think I'm better than Mr Logic? Hi praise indeed! [We should all aspire to be better-than-normal...]
"Andy Pandy" wrote

Ah, running off again? Perhaps you're trying to pay for your deposit with money that you don't have, again?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim wrote:

It is my understanding that it implies a *higher than usual* level of *un*certainty (or a *lower than usual* level of **certainty).
Aside: Heh, putting asterisks around something implies a form of underlining or emphasis. It is possible to emphasise nothing? Evidetly so. The two asterisks in front of the last word in the previous paragraph emphasises the absence of "un". :-)

I think that goes a bit too far. I think it means that while you are not aware of any specific reasons why it should be untrue, you are not necessarily convinced that it is true. E.g. it sounds plausible, but you only heard it from a man in the pub.
The phrase is generally used when the understanding has been formed on the basis of information gleaned from a source of substandard reliability, or from a potentially unreliable recollection or interpretation. "I understand ... but may have misunderstood". "I have been led to believe ... but may have been misled."
You use it as a caveat, much like "I wouldn't swear to it".

Are you certain? :-)
Point is, I think, that one can be pretty sure of something to the extent of totally believing it, and in such circumstances one just would not say AIUI.

Yes it does. It implies what he says it implies. What you infer is of course a different matter. You may have a different understanding.

Quite true, but "understand" admits the possibility of misunderstanding and therefore implies (at least some) absence of certainty.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload


Not sure about the kids, but I never meant to include lodgers as part of the household.
Though surely, if someone does have a lodger, the rent that they are paying counts as income for benefit calculation even if it can be ignored for taxation purposes (because it is below the allowed limit).
tim
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

BeanSmart.com is a site by and for consumers of financial services and advice. We are not affiliated with any of the banks, financial services or software manufacturers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

Tax and financial advice you come across on this site is freely given by your peers and professionals on their own time and out of the kindness of their hearts. We can guarantee neither accuracy of such advice nor its applicability for your situation. Simply put, you are fully responsible for the results of using information from this site in real life situations.