Over payment non contributory pension help


I think, in this case, the re-imbursement is valid, as the applicant, clearly had substantial means, whilst applying for a means tested benefit.

It is very different from a frugal pensioner, receiving only the non contributory pension, who, saves some money, from that income.

Although rare, it does happen that a pensioner, saving 30 or 40 euros a week, could breach the 20k savings limit.

In this case, its clearly deliberate fraud. So the estate should pay back the sum fraudulently claimed.
 

Seems to me that if any pensioner - irrespective of their frugality or impressive ability to survive by eating only raw turnips and roadkill - is able to save 30 or 40 euros a week, then the State non-contributory pension is far too generous!
 

Well, it happens. Many people do it to cover funeral costs, or leave a small inheritance behind.
Perhaps if family members are chipping in with the weekly shop, or providing transport, or basic clothing, it can happen very easily.
I would agree they should be discouraged from saving, too much. They should spend the money, or give it away, or drink it in the local pub, or head off to Lanza every winter.
 

I've got absolutely no problem with them saving; so long as they inform social welfare as soon as their savings exceed the threshold - so their pension can be reduced appropriately!
 
Right Winger said:
Oddly enough, if the OPs relative had used the 350k to build a massive extension to his PPR, it would not have counted as means and the OAP would have been unaffected. Not a very coherent system.
Click to expand...
So if OP accummulated savings which are then used to build an extension - these savings are not counted as means for non-con pension?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register