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?
Reply to
chris ketchell
16,000
but there is a deduction from the benefit for sums in excess of 6,000
Most definately
tim
Reply to
tim....
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.
Reply to
Andy Pandy
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?
Reply to
chris ketchell
Thanks both
I can draw the money back out of the mortgage later if I need it
Just to confirm - My wifes personal savings would affect my personal claim?
Reply to
chris ketchell
Other than contributions based JSA (and some invalidity payments) benefit entitlement is based upon household income/savings.
tim
Reply to
tim....
"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?!
Reply to
Tim
Be careful, offset mortgages aren't the same as flexible mortgages. With offset mortgages you have separate accounts, eg a savings account and a mortgage account. The DWP might regard them as two separate things (don't assume consistency with HMRC's tax treatment).
Safest way is a flexible mortgage where it's just one account, ie the mortgage, but where you can withdraw overpayments.
May be worth asking on uk.gov.social-security where all the benefits experts are.
Yes definitely. Any claim for means tested benefits are joint ie they require you to declare your partner's income and savings.
Contribution based benefits depend on your record (generally) not your means.
Reply to
Andy Pandy
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.
Reply to
Andy Pandy
"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?
Reply to
Tim
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.
Reply to
Andy Pandy
"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!
Reply to
Tim
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.
Reply to
Andy Pandy
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...
Reply to
Tim
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
Reply to
tim....
There are "non dependant deductions" in HB - ie the amount the "non-dependants" (eg lodgers, grown up offspring) are expected to contribute towards the rent.
Not sure what happens if they are claiming SMI or if they own outright and so don't get SMI or HB. Probably the rent (minus costs) does count as income and would be deducted from SMI (or other benefits if they don't get any/enough SMI).
Reply to
Andy Pandy
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.
Reply to
Andy Pandy
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!
Reply to
Tim
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.
formatting link
Reply to
Andy Pandy
"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:-
formatting link

Reply to
Tim

Site Timeline Threads

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.