Proof positive that the benefits system is potty

naomi24 | 10:47 Sat 27th Oct 2012 | Society & Culture

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?

justin bieber cold calls

how long would a letter take to arrive here, from istanbul - first class?

Answers

41 to 60 of 64

First Previous 1 2 3 4 Next Last

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.

naomi24

Question Author

Corbyloon, because that was money owed to her. Had she opted for weekly paments rather than monthly payments, she would have had the money in her account before she died.

sometimesit

naomi24
Firstly I'm sorry for you loss and this upsetting experience.
Your comment 'The office dealing with mobility payments.....' is how it should be done. The problem is that all the agencies use different systems and notoriously don't talk to each other. In and 'ideal' world all this would be automatic, you die and it is registered the death certificate is posted some sort of secure deposit and all the Gov departments would instantly get an update to that effect.
But I don't think that will happen in our life time, if ever. What we have is imperfect and it is better to have money that your relative was entitled too. I would suggest if you get the money to give it to a pensioner you know who is struggling with the winter cold (when it happens)

LazyGun

@ Naomi - Oops sorry if I was arguing the extended point rather than the specific point you raised. If i have contributed to derailing, apologies.

naomi24

Question Author

Factor, as I said, if the money has already been paid when someone dies, fair enough. That should be the end of the story. Anything else is too complicated. However, when the money hasn't been paid, an immediate stop should be put on it.

factor-fiction

I agree, naomi, if it's September but I can see good reasons for not stopping some or all of it if the death occurs in December, so where do we draw the line? That's my only issue

Prudie

As 'the estate' is to all intent a gift to its beneficiaries, who have not paid for any already spent WFA, I see no reason why they should get part or any of it after a death.

THECORBYLOON

The WFP is also owed to her because there was entitlement to it. The payment is meant to cover heating bills but folk can spend it on anything they feel like. If the payment were spread through the year by adding a wee bit to the weekly pension, who's to say that every pensioner would put money past so that when the bigger fuel bills arrived, they'd have the savings to cover it? Giving them a lump sum means they do not have to scrimp in the preceding months.

factor-fiction

^ except to the extent that the estate may have to fork out for unpaid bills incurred during any part of winter before the death

factor-fiction

sorry- my comment was to Prudie

naomi24

Question Author

Sometimesit, thank you. I know all offices work differently, but no other benefits office has a problem in putting an immediate stop on future payments.

Factor, there is no line to draw. If the benefit has been paid before death, end of story. If it hasn’t, stop it instantly.

LG, no problem. It’s an interesting and controversial topic, and since in my opinion the whole system needs a thorough overhaul, it’s one well worth discussing.

Prudie

Yes factor 'the estate' may have to fork out not a family member. That money is only theirs after the bills have been paid.

THECORBYLOON

If there is entitlement to arrears, those arrears are due to the estate. The arrears in this case include the WFP because the entitlement arose prior to the date of death even though the payment was intended to cover a future period.

naomi24

Question Author

I don't see why choosing to have her pension paid monthly, thereby incurring four weeks arrears, should entitle her - or more to the point, me - to anything more than payment of that after her death. It's nonsense.

boxtops

"I'm phoning you because my husband's working abroad at the moment." "Can you put him on the phone?""No."

naomi24

Question Author

Boxy, Haaa! That’s about it! It reminds me of a time I had to phone one of the utility companies for my relative. They wouldn’t speak to me – only to her – so she took the phone and relayed their questions to me which I then answered for her to relay back to them. I wondered how they knew she was who she was anyway!

factor-fiction

>"Factor, there is no line to draw. If the benefit has been paid before death, end of story. If it hasn’t, stop it instantly. " That may be okay if it's September but the family may disagree if the death occurs in early December and the WFA hasn't arrived but a large winter fuel bill lands on the doorstep and this has to be paid from the estate.

What this does show, Naomi, is that it's very difficult to get agreement on changes to the benefits system. Any change, however sensible it seems, will always lead to objections from some.

What does surprise me is that WFA payments are made to relatives after a death. This seems wrong- any payments should go to the estate

woofgang

factor, I think you are right. In my case, as sole beneficiary, the distinction was a fine one.

naomi24

Question Author

Factor, She died intestate and with very little money and no property, so no estate. Otherwise I presume the benefit would be paid to the estate and the beneficiaries of that estate would eventually receive it.

-- answer removed --