Means-tested benefits... oh dear!

It's hard to write about what is actually quite a complicated story in summary. Please bear with me, gentle readers.

I used to be an IT consultant (I had my own company), until it became impossible for me to carry on working in 1998.

In simple terms, I existed for many years on IB and 10p/week (yes, you read that right) Income Support. Fortunately, I don't drink or smoke or have any expensive vices, so I managed by being prudent. In 2010, I was granted DLA, and my income almost doubled overnight! I would have applied for this years earlier, except having worked all my life up to then, I didn't even know it existed.

Not being one to go on a spending binge, I remained careful with what I was given, and used it carefully. By February this year, I had saved enough money to buy a second-hand car (Mondeo Diesel automatic, 4 years old). About £14,000 in round numbers - I needed a fairly big car because I have to carry around a scooter (itself second-hand, and a bit long in the tooth now). Take it as read that I consider a car as vital, and a lifeline.

In March this year, I had a call from a compliance officer moaning that I had over £6,000 in savings. I didn't say "so what", but simply said "yes", how else do I buy a car? People on ESA don't get loans (not credit worthy), so the obvious thing was to save my DLA to buy it. I had read so many horror stories about people losing out when DLA converted to PIP that I wouldn't consider motability for fear of losing my car at a moment's notice, not to mention other fairly expensive things that have to be replaced now and again. My hospital bed costs £3,000 when the time comes to replace my current one. This newer car won't last forever either, so it's an ongoing process.

Let's cut to the chase! I have now been landed with a demand to repay some ESA and a £50 "civil" penalty totalling about £1,500.00. I nearly hit the roof!

The thing that seems wrong to me is that all this is that DLA (and now PIP) is not considered to be income. Logically then, saving it for a needy expensive purchase is simply deferring drawing it until sufficient funds are available? Such was my naive thinking anyway.

I have asked for a "mandatory reconsideration", but this has been refused because I have refused to supply bank statements going back to 2013.

It's not that I have anything to hide, but I think I've already been stripped of enough dignity by having to put pen to paper on two 40-page forms (ESA and PIP) and describe in intimate detail my various medical difficulties I have been humiliated enough. Without having my every transaction queried over the course of some 36 bank statements. I would have thought that if I'm to be found guilty of an offence, some evidence would actually have to be presented and a proper calculation done; but as things are I've been put in the impossible (and I mean impossible) position of having to prove innocence. Producing bank statements is the road to perdition - I could be mired for years having to justify every penny hither and thither. The anxiety would worsen my mental illness beyond breaking point. It would prove nothing either! Every penny of income I have comes from the DWP anyway, so what good would this do? If I had some other income, would I be stupid enough to have it go into my bank? The DWP could minutely examine my affairs and then say, OK, we can't find anything here, you must have funds elsewhere! Again, I could not prove otherwise because it's impossible to do so.

Being coerced into having over my detailed financial affairs I would also consider a violation of my right to remain silent. It is noteworthy that nowhere has this request for statements been put in writing - only 'phone calls that I can't take to my lawyer. This does seem to be a redefinition of a mandatory reconsideration too, it appears to be a discretionary reconsideration. This of course cleverly blocks my route to appeal. Every letter I have had to date tells me that I have this right, but it seems that I haven't!

Logically, I would have thought that it would be up to the DWP to prove that I had done wrong, rather than for me to prove that I hadn't? I'm almost inclined to say "OK, prosecute me"; but I know they won't do that because they haven't got any actual evidence. Instead, I'm meted out this arbitrary justice.

I wouldn't mind so much, but I'm accused of negligence and things that simply aren't true, and I have to prove that they aren't true, which, again, is impossible. This is why in British courts there is the presumption of innocence, and it falls to The Crown to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty.

Just as yet, I don't really know how to proceed. I'm almost blind with rage at the moment!

I suppose my first question is: how do people in my position that have to purchase or pay for expensive adaptations save up for the more expensive ones? I could treat this as a lesson, pay the penalty and consider it as absolution, and find some more devious way of handling things?

Comments? I'm interested in both sides if anyone has any insights from any angle I'll be interested to read them.

Hi Gordon,

Thanks for your reply. What you say is, as far as I can tell, more-or-less what has happened. Your explanation is the best I have yet had: nobody at the DWP has actually explained to me what has gone wrong?

The argument I have used to date is that DLA (and now PIP) is not considered for the purposes of income (nor does the inland revenue or anyone else). All my letters from the DWP say this. How then, can setting this money aside for an expensive purchase that I need, and am paid a benefit to facilitate (the mobility component is by far the largest), amount to an offence? If it's not income, how does saving it suddenly become capital? I have argued that in effect I merely deferred drawing this money until such time as I replaced my by then 14 year old car. A beneficial side effect of some decent interest allowed me to buy the car earlier than I would have otherwise.

Given how successive governments have squeezed sick and disabled people, I cannot quite understand how people pay for expensive adaptations and the things they need?

For example, I have a hospital bed with various motors and whatnot in it to help me sit-up in bed (which I cannot do unaided), or rise to standing when I get up. This will cost me over £3000 to replace, plus installation fees. The installation fees amount to dismantling the bed upon arrival here and reassembling it in my bedroom: this is because it is way too heavy to carry upstairs. Apparently, the bed can be rented, but I don't want to go this way because a change in the benefits system could see me without even a bed! Similarly, I have been pondering a stair-lift which will cost a fortune because of the weird shape of my staircase. How do people manage this?

I have tried to play as honestly as possible, but I'm beginning to think that it isn't possible in the further future. I had a friend who died earlier this year, and he had tens of thousands in cash in his home - perhaps this kind of problem was the reason why?

I could demonstrate that I saved this money and didn't touch it until I bought the car; it's conceivable that by doing so I could make matters worse?

The money itself and repaying it isn't going to be a problem, but it's a question of how to play things in future having learned from this blunder.

I did consider resigning the income related part of ESA, and then I could save as much as I liked, but the economics of doing so might be bad: I understand that Income related ESA is the gateway to free prescriptions and council tax benefit and so-on, and without this just those two alone would amount to a huge bill.

It grieves me to see on TV people retiring from work due to COPD caused by smoking, sitting at home with a fridge full of beer smoking away in front of the TV, and they go on as happy as Larry. Here am I, trying to be socially responsible and use the money I have been given in a prudent and sensible way, and I get penalised for it!

As for the practicalities of paying the money back, fortunately that won't be a problem. It will set me back somewhat, and I don't know how I'm going to replace my car come the time. Again, any ideas on this would be most helpful.

I could just draw money in cash and thus it would disappear; but this seems a bit disingenuous to say the least, so I don't really want to go this route; but if anyone has any better ideas I would love to hear them?

The impact that all this strife has had upon my health has been profound. If someone had simply warned me that I was straying into choppy waters I could have explained what I was doing and maybe modified my behaviour. The way things have been dealt with so far seems arbitrary, draconian, and nobody seems to have actually listened to what I am saying.

Richard.

I understand this situation myself. You might look at the Consumer Action Groups website. Its a free forum and you can ask them about this kind of thing.

We disabled ones are discriminated against, or so it seems. If I was you I would just let them take the money out of your benefits. I pay back about £11.20pw. Hopefully it won't go to court. Good luck and please, try not to worry. I spent a couple of years appealing and still worried about going to court.

This is truly mind-boggling, Gordon. I had no idea that money unspent for a while became capital. Is there somewhere where this is all written down, and I can perhaps understand the system myself eventually. I don't disbelieve what you say, but it seems barmy to me!

I can understand why people get so worried by the seemingly fickle and pedantic system people try to rely upon.

During my working life, I was prudent with money and always made sure that I had buffer of a few thousand pounds in order to be able to withstand the shocks that life has a nasty habit of throwing at us. In the world where one is wholly dependent upon benefits, it seems that prudence is discouraged by penalising people that exercise it.

While I had to stop work for relatively simple physical and obviously medical reasons, I have endured worsening mental health ever since. I took remarks like "strivers and skivers" very personally, because there is always a bit of self-doubt which wonders whether I could have tried harder and maybe worked longer? I do suffer considerable guilt at being a charge on the state, and if I could extract myself from this I would do; but obviously saving isn't the answer.

When I find myself under attack for doing something that anyone else in normal life is encouraged to do (save for things rather than go into debt), the impact upon my mental health is very bad indeed. I have learned to live on very little indeed, so my instinct is to save that which I do not spend.

I have hitherto thought that people that spend money as soon as they get it, especially when reliant upon benefits, are just being stupid. It seems that I'm the stupid one!

Happily the DWP's damage is picked-up by the NHS, and I've had many of my meds doubled to keep me stable. I wonder how much that is costing?