Horrible experience

talking from my experience working for HMRC they have all the information.....nothing is hidden at all....watch this space

Ok, turns out that the Compliance Officer is putting her report to a decision maker and claiming that I had £5000 ( five thousand ) over and above the £6000 savings limit for a period of two years
. I deny it . The extra £5000 was not in my name and I honestly did not intend to deliberately reduce my savings.Perhaps a stupid situation to get myself in.
IF DWP judge that I had £5000 too much in savings how much do I pay back? The officer tried to explain it but it went over my head. Do I actually owe them £5000 ? Or a part thereof? It is so confusing.
Sorry if I appear daft but I do get confused because I of the prescription drugs I have to take.
Thanks

Thanks so much Gordon. Not as bad as I thought then. The Compliance Officer did say they might even find in our favour but I doubt it. I wish I had never had any savings or gifted my boy the money.Never again will I get in such a mess. Never. It has been a severely stressful time .
They have totally picked our lives apart. I have provided everything they asked for and more.
I will be afraid to have savings in the future even well under the limit..
Will let you know what happens

Dougle, this may help although it may not be what you would ideally like to hear.

Earlier in the thread, you acknowledged the £5,000 was saved from your DLA. If that is correct, it's going to be hard to argue it wasn't yours at the time. That leaves the issue of gifting the money to a family member.

In broad terms, the law states that if you (or partner) deprive yourself of capital for the purpose of securing benefit, it is still taken into account as yours. So, the crux of the argument is about the reason(s) for gifting the money.

Developments in Case Law (e.g. Upper Tribunal decisions, Court judgements and older Social Security Commissioners' decisions) mean the gifting of money to secure benefit doesn't have to be the sole or main reason for benefit to be affected. If the gifting of the money was with a "significant operative purpose" to secure benefit, that is sufficient for you to be treated as still possessing the money, even though it has been given to a.n. other. In plain English, it's an anti-abuse deeming provision.

There *may* be a technical argument that the "significant operative purpose" test should instead be a "dominant purpose" test but that would mean challenging 30+ years of strongly established legal precedent. As such, the odds would be firmly stacked against you and, in any case, you would probably need a welfare rights advisor / organisation that truly understood that level of argument AND was prepared to put in the resources to make the argument.

On the issue of evidence, the DWP (and local authorities) are allowed to ask for any evidence and documentation that is reasonably required in order to make a decision. You can refuse but legal precedent (Case Law again) makes it clear that (reasonable) inferences can be drawn in those circumstances. As your case is about capital, it would be hard to argue that bank statements and the entries shown on them aren't reasonably required.

Finally, another technical issue. If you are found to have been overpaid benefit specifically as a result of capital, there is a calculation the DWP must carry out called "Diminution of Capital" when determining the overall overpayment. In (overly) simplistic terms, the amount of your capital is deemed to be reduced every three months by the amount of overpayment covering the preceding three months. Input from a welfare rights advisor / organisation will help to make sure this has been done.