Which Outfit For The Gig Tonight?
Shopping & Style2 mins ago
Proof positive that the benefits system is potty
64 Answers
We rang the appropriate government offices to tell them a family member had recently died, and the first question they asked was ‘Is she there with you now?’
‘No, she’s dead – that’s what I’m telling you’.
We filled in the forms they sent us and returned them, and have now received notification that her winter fuel allowance, that she has no hope of using because she’s dead, will be paid to us!!
No surprise the system is short of money! Crazy!
Any more examples?
‘No, she’s dead – that’s what I’m telling you’.
We filled in the forms they sent us and returned them, and have now received notification that her winter fuel allowance, that she has no hope of using because she’s dead, will be paid to us!!
No surprise the system is short of money! Crazy!
Any more examples?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I see Naomi's point. I also see Corbyloon's point but not for a death in September- the winter fuel payment is to cover winter.
I suppose the argument is that it would be complicated to have rules saying you get x% of it if you die in October, Y % if you die in November, etc...and if you die after you get it but before winter is over you repay so much. It would be awfully messy.
The problem would not arise if winter fuel allowance were just added to the state pension as a weekly allowance
I suppose the argument is that it would be complicated to have rules saying you get x% of it if you die in October, Y % if you die in November, etc...and if you die after you get it but before winter is over you repay so much. It would be awfully messy.
The problem would not arise if winter fuel allowance were just added to the state pension as a weekly allowance
Up to £25m given in Winter Fuel Payments to dead pensioners' families.
http://
http://
I know the argument about benefits is often split along ideological left-right lines, but when it comes to the universal benefit payments I do think we can no longer afford to just have an open purse policy.
The argument against changing the status quo of these universal benefits - winter fuel payments, child benefits, free bus pass, TV licence etc - has long been that to attempt to impose any kind of vetting process would cost more to administrate than the savings you make. I am no longer sure that this is true.
There are other arguments too - making such benefits universal offers a better vehicle for ensuring all those eligible actually get the benefit to which they are entitled - there was much soul searching about winter fuel allowance for instance with the news that some elderly had died without the central heating on, who had not claimed their allowance and were plainly fearful they would be unable to pay the bills.And in the current times with the spiralling cost of energy, this becomes more important. Universal child benefit paid to the mothers ensures those people who need the money most get access to it.
Having said all that, I know many individuals who are, frankly, wealthy enough that they do not need the winter fuel payments which are automatically paid into their bank accounts, they do not need free TV licences or bus passes, and the child benefit has become for some wealthy women pocket money.Currently, that I am aware of, there is no mechanism for opting out of such benefit payments, which is ludicrous.
For me, the issue is all about fairness and proportionality with a limited state budget. Ideologically, all state benefits should be vetted, and we certainly need to introduce a means by which you can opt out or return unneeded benefit payments.
I have often idly considered the following initiative - the Govt, after a suitable period of notice and advertisement, stop all such benefit payments. In order to qualify, you have to register to receive them, and provide some evidence of income to support your claim. And there should be an automatic bar on child benefits, with the cap at 2 or perhaps 3 kids.
The argument against changing the status quo of these universal benefits - winter fuel payments, child benefits, free bus pass, TV licence etc - has long been that to attempt to impose any kind of vetting process would cost more to administrate than the savings you make. I am no longer sure that this is true.
There are other arguments too - making such benefits universal offers a better vehicle for ensuring all those eligible actually get the benefit to which they are entitled - there was much soul searching about winter fuel allowance for instance with the news that some elderly had died without the central heating on, who had not claimed their allowance and were plainly fearful they would be unable to pay the bills.And in the current times with the spiralling cost of energy, this becomes more important. Universal child benefit paid to the mothers ensures those people who need the money most get access to it.
Having said all that, I know many individuals who are, frankly, wealthy enough that they do not need the winter fuel payments which are automatically paid into their bank accounts, they do not need free TV licences or bus passes, and the child benefit has become for some wealthy women pocket money.Currently, that I am aware of, there is no mechanism for opting out of such benefit payments, which is ludicrous.
For me, the issue is all about fairness and proportionality with a limited state budget. Ideologically, all state benefits should be vetted, and we certainly need to introduce a means by which you can opt out or return unneeded benefit payments.
I have often idly considered the following initiative - the Govt, after a suitable period of notice and advertisement, stop all such benefit payments. In order to qualify, you have to register to receive them, and provide some evidence of income to support your claim. And there should be an automatic bar on child benefits, with the cap at 2 or perhaps 3 kids.
If I know the fuel bill will be £300, I need to have that sum to pay for it. I have the option to save an amount of money each week so that by the time that bill is due, I have £300 to pay the bill. If I am saving money, it means it is not being spent on food for example. I also have the option of not putting money past so that I can spend it on food in the knowledge that the WFP will go toward the bills
I agree with the principles of what you say, LazyGun. I've said before that tings like winter fuel allowance should be replaced by an increase in the state pension of maybe £5-10 a week. It would then count as taxable income so the better off would pay some back via tax and there is no need for means testing form filling (other than the system of tax codes that already exists).
@Sandy - I agree with the point you make, and of course that was the principal reason that the winter fuel allowance was made a universal benefit. I am now thinking though that we cannot afford such generosity, and there is the ideological point that state financial aid should be means tested to ensure that we are not wasting money that needs to be spread further.
At the very least there should be a mechanism in place where you can opt out of such payments. It was only a year or so ago that a bunch of celebrity "OAPS" highlighted this issue, expressing their frustration with being unable to repay or opt out by donating their payments to charity.....
At the very least there should be a mechanism in place where you can opt out of such payments. It was only a year or so ago that a bunch of celebrity "OAPS" highlighted this issue, expressing their frustration with being unable to repay or opt out by donating their payments to charity.....
factor, I'm not talking about clawing back benefits. If this benefit had already been received, no problem, but it hadn't. When we called to say she'd died, the office should have made a note of it and stopped the benefit there and then. How difficult or complex is that? The office dealing with mobility payments etc, doesn't seem to have a problem putting an immediate stop on benefits.
thetaliesin, thank you. I think you're right.
thetaliesin, thank you. I think you're right.
Anything to do with a Government department system is going to get complicated and costly to administer. The situation with dead people is never going to be perfect, as each surviving family member handle issues differently.
I found when i was dealing with dumb issues that cropped up with my family (deaths) was to try and just do what it took to sort it out. But these things DO upset people. I would suggest it is best to deal with them by email or in writing as it is not so instant.
This site can HELP with some of the issues.
http://www.mpsonline.org.uk/mpsr/
I found when i was dealing with dumb issues that cropped up with my family (deaths) was to try and just do what it took to sort it out. But these things DO upset people. I would suggest it is best to deal with them by email or in writing as it is not so instant.
This site can HELP with some of the issues.
http://www.mpsonline.org.uk/mpsr/
>When we called to say she'd died, the office should have made a note of it and stopped the benefit there and then.
I agree it seems wrong that beneficiaries should get the WFA money that was intened to pay future bills.
I can see that September is not winter but I think the difficulty comes in deciding where to draw the line. If WFA is intended to cover bills from October to March and is paid in December then what happens if someone dies on 30 November or early December- the Estate could argue it should get at least a fraction of the WFA since the Estate has to pay for higher bills incurred during October and November.
By the way, I don't see why relatives should get it- surely it should just go into the Estate until probate is granted and the Estate is wound up
As for clawing back I was implying that your argument could be extended to include that, but I know you aren't saying that, so I won't complicate the issue further
I agree it seems wrong that beneficiaries should get the WFA money that was intened to pay future bills.
I can see that September is not winter but I think the difficulty comes in deciding where to draw the line. If WFA is intended to cover bills from October to March and is paid in December then what happens if someone dies on 30 November or early December- the Estate could argue it should get at least a fraction of the WFA since the Estate has to pay for higher bills incurred during October and November.
By the way, I don't see why relatives should get it- surely it should just go into the Estate until probate is granted and the Estate is wound up
As for clawing back I was implying that your argument could be extended to include that, but I know you aren't saying that, so I won't complicate the issue further
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.