benefit fraud

[nvqwomen]

hi there, my fater in law invested 120 grand into his daughters house and also had a restriction put on the house but no charge put on. ,he moved in with his daughter, but after a year he decided to move out and rent a flat. he spent what money he had left which was 25 grand. and claimed benifits to pay for the flat and for himself, he is 65 years old, he has now been investicated for 2 hours,but not said what the out come was, if they can prove that it was benift fraud would they stop his housing benefit straight away or would it have to go to court first, many thanks for anyone who can give advice as my sister in law is worried that she may lose her house.

[sara3]

if he failed to declare his capital he will have made false statements/declarations, which is a criminal offence. a Decision Maker will decide if he is still entitled to claim benefits, and an overpayment will be calculated which he is liable for. once the overpayment figure is known a decision will be made as to whether he will be prosecuted, or receive some other form of sanction, or neither.. but he will still be liable to repay the overpayment.

why did he not declare the capital, and what benefits are involved?

[Ethel]

What did he spend the �25000 on? Was he deliberately wasting his assets so he could claim benefits, or has he hidden it under the mattress?

[nvqwomen]

thankyou for your quick response,he didnt declare the capital,because he is saying that it was a gift to his daughter,so i surpose if its a gift,why bother putting a restiction on the house..the sale from his house that he had he put 120 grand into his daughters house and that left him with 25 grand, which he spent over 12months on a caravan that was left on a driveway and never used, swopping from one car to another, meals out and takeaways. paying for a fence that fell down at his daughters house, even his family found it hard to understand how he can just spend money the way he did.he has claimed pension credits since he was living in his own house, and when he sold his house, he didnt inform the pension credits of his prceeds from the house he just told them of his new address and no change in his circumstances and just carried on claiming his benefit even when he had the 25 grand, then when he moved out and rented a flat he then claimed housing and coucil tax benifit

[sara3]

I don't see how cutting his benefits would affect your sister-in-law's housing situation, but father-in-law has (in my opinion) committed an offence. you can't just fritter away your money, then expect the state to support you.

he'll have to wait and see what the outcome will be, but he can expect to pay pay all the benefits he's had that he wasn't entitled to, and I suspect his benefits (other than Retirement Pension) will stop.

if he's signed anything that was a false declaration he can be prosecuted, as that's what the declaration would warn him of.

[nvqwomen]

hi sara3 my sister inlaws concern is, will she be forced to sell her house so her father can have the 120 grand back, he been offered to move back in with his daughter, but he refuses to.he wants to live on his own, but his family thinks he will have his benefits stopped and also he must owe quite a few thousand pounds and if he got no money, would he be forced to get his money back from his daughters house.many thanks for your help

[sara3]

well I guess that's between S-I-L and F-I-L, but if he is taken to court it will go in his favour if he's seen to be making an effort to repay. when he gets the letters regarding the overpayments he should try to come to an arrangement to repay. maybe his daughter/family could help? I doubt he will be forced to sell the property, but whether he feels he needs to (to support himself) is another matter.

do you have any idea how large the overpayment(s) may be? or how long this has gone on for?

[nvqwomen]

hi there, its been 8 months that hes rented the flat for and is still living there. so i would say bout 3800 in housing and concil tax benefit and for pension credits that been bout 2years that he been claiming that for, so i have no clue how much that will come to,im not sure what is going on as he will not let his family know what is happening, but he is still living at his flat, so im not sure if the benefit office is still paying his rent, or if he is living off his life insurance which he had 2 policys and came to a total of 21 grand when he became 65 which was a few months ago,, and i dont think he told the benefit office a bout that pay out.he is a fool to himself.we has a family tried telling him that he should declaire his money, but i surpose he thinks hes above the law.but thankyou so much for your help.i will pass this on to the family tomorrow.

[sara3]

benefits investigators have a lot of power now. they can access all account information for someone claiming benefits without their permission or knowledge, so they will probably know about all of it. he sounds a bit foolish to me, but he's not the first and he certainly won't be the last!

[nvqwomen]

thakyou so much for all your help and information, i will be letting the family know tomorrow, once again many thanks for your help.

[themas]

Is the house in your sister-in-law's name, of is it owned jointly with her father? If he is not a joint owner, then I don't see how he can force her to sell unless there is something in the restriction which gives him that right.

[Ethel]

It is termed 'deprivation of assets' and he can be treated as if he still had the money he put in to your sister in laws house.

He will be expected to pay back all the money he has claimed so far and will not be able to claim in the future - he will be considered to have too much capital

[wolf63]

As Ethel says it is deprivation of assets. He has, apart from the �120k, had his �25k which he seems to have spent foolishly given the circumstances.

He will be entitled to his normal Retirement Pension - this is not a means tested benefit. The overpayment will be any excess Pension Credit payable and any housing benefit..

He could force his daughter to sell her house unless he buys her out. The situation is unfair on her - but he has the right to do this if he chooses.

[nvqwomen]

thankyou for your replys, my sister in law has a morgage, and no, her farther does not have his name on the deeds, he only has a restriction but no charge on the land papers. my sister in law had a morgage and her farther put the 120 grand.he moved in with her but after 12 months he decided he wanted his own place,so thats when he got himself a flat and claimed housing benefit, but he was claiming pension credits before he sold his own house and moved in with his daughter, and never told them of his change of circumstances only told them of his new address,even though he had 25 grand in the bank,he had 2 life policys which when he was 65 he never told them a bout those either,how much of that he has left i dont know,as he spends money like water.but to all and everyone thankyou for your help and replys,many thanks to everyone.

[themas]

I agree with Ethel & Wolf that this is deprivation of assets.

He will be reuired to pay the money back & it can be taken from his State Retirement Pension - I believe they can reduce the amount he gets by one third or thereabouts.

I do not understand wolf's comment that he can force his daughter to sell the house. It is in her name & not his so he has no title to it. Her debt to him (if that is what it can be called) appears not to be secured on the house unless the restriction has that effect (which depends on its wording).

[nvqwomen]

thankyou to everyone.,i have informed my sister in law of all the information that has been given.my sister in law is making appointment with a solicitor to see how she stand where the restriction is concern on the land registery.what a silly silly man he is.once again many thanks for all the help i have been given.

[nvqwomen]

just to say that on the land registery the restriction is saying that she can not sell the house without his say so, he would have to sign to say she would be aloud to sell,and also she couldnt re-morgage without his say so, but there no charge saying what amount he put into the house, just the restriction.

[themas]

A good idea for her to see a solicitor. What the restriction sems to mean is that he can refuse to agree to her selling without him getting his money back, but it doesn't seem to give him a right to force a sale. (I hope there is some documentary evidence of the amount he put in.)