Over payment non contributory pension help

F

Foodie1

Registered User
Messages
66
Would appreciate some opinions on this scenario. Took over relatives financial affairs as now in nursing home. Getting Non contrib pension for last 25 yrs whilst having over 350k in cash. applied with help from now deceased brother.
Social welfare have written looking for update on financial affairs and will respond with all correct info.
Given this relative has been hugely overpaid given savings what is likely to happen?
 
I assume it is either dealt with now, while the pensioner is alive, or after death, where the executor of the will may have to deal with it:

Operational Guidelines: Management of Customer Overpayments and Recovery of Customer Debt

Operational Guidelines: Management of Customer Overpayments and Recovery of Customer Debt.
www.gov.ie www.gov.ie

DSP can have a claim on the estate. It happened in my extended family, two people did not declare their assets, the DSP took it from their estate.
 
We intend dealing with it now. May I ask did they take all monies owed going back years and were there extra fines as this will all effect fair deal etc
 
Foodie1 said:
We intend dealing with it now. May I ask did they take all monies owed going back years and were there extra fines as this will all effect fair deal etc
Click to expand...

They will only seek repayment of the overpayment, no interest or penalties are applied.

The case will be referred to DSP's repayments section who may take a long time to calculate the repayment due. In the interim it is possible that they may reduce the amount of weekly n-c pension paid, but I think that's at the discretion of the Deciding Officer.
 
Shirazman said:
They will only seek repayment of the overpayment, no interest or penalties are applied.

The case will be referred to DSP's repayments section who may take a long time to calculate the repayment due. In the interim it is possible that they may reduce the amount of weekly n-c pension paid, but I think that's at the discretion of the Deciding Officer.
Click to expand...
Thanks so much for that. The monies owed will be significant over last 25 yrs.
 
Foodie1 said:
Thanks so much for that. The monies owed will be significant over last 25 yrs.
Click to expand...

If you wanted to, and if you have access to the other funds, then you could consider asking the DSP to stop paying the pension altogether, with immediate effect. That would stop the overpayment from continuing to increase.
 
Foodie1 said:
Took over relatives financial affairs as now in nursing home. Getting Non contrib pension for last 25 yrs whilst having over 350k in cash.
Click to expand...
Is it your job to be advising DSP of this issue? The issue has lain dormant for many years. What would be achieved by rectifying it? Money will continue to pile up and then will be recouped from the estate.

Does your relative even have the capacity to authorise a repayment? In many ways it would be simplest to leave this to the executor. The money will be repaid eventually.
 
Revenue wrote looking for update on finances for the first time ever. Will respond truthfully but it does beg the question how come this has not been audited in 25 yrs?
 
I met the head of all non-con pensions once.

He introduced me to the term "non-con".

In our brief conversation, he referred to issues/challenges due to recipients accumulating savings, and then subsequently having to do means-tests.

He also mentioned recipients not declaring assets like land, etc.
 
Protocol said:
I met the head of all non-con pensions once.

He introduced me to the term "non-con".

In our brief conversation, he referred to issues/challenges due to recipients accumulating savings, and then subsequently having to do means-tests.

He also mentioned recipients not declaring assets like land, etc.
Click to expand...
I'm confused.
What has that got to do with the original poster's questions?
 
NoRegretsCoyote said:
It means this situation is not unusual.

If you live frugally on a means-tested pension and accumulate savings they will in time be used to reduce said pension.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's the point of a "means tested" pension. The State, thankfully, doesn't make judgements about how people choose to spend their money. It does provide a societal safety net.
 
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...

Although the amount of VAT that he would have paid to the State would have been significant.

So, although it would have lost on the roundabout, the exchequer would have won on the swings!
 
Purple said:
Yes, that's the point of a "means tested" pension. The State, thankfully, doesn't make judgements about how people choose to spend their money. It does provide a societal safety net.
Click to expand...

But, it does make a judgement, on those who are frugal. By sequestering their savings, either in their very old age or, after they die.
In my experience, the most frugal and the most, frequently, punished are those who live on very limited means. They get the non-c pension and stretch it out. They might save 40 or 50 Euros a week. Over 20 years, they might accumulate 50 or 60k.
They get the bus, rather than taxis, they switch off every light, they heat the house very sparingly, they re use the same clothes, the same furniture, their groceries are miniscule. They never go on holiday, or stay away from home. The garden is dug with the same spade they had for decades. They might hope to leave a little something for their children or grand children.
It's desperately sad to see their meagre inheritance gobbled up by the dark suited men from the Welfare Dept.
Anyone in such a situation , should hand over the cash to those grandchildren now, or spend it on taxis, or gin, or whatever. But don't let it sit , accumulating in the bank ,because it might be grabbed.
 
Allpartied said:
But, it does make a judgement, on those who are frugal. By sequestering their savings, either in their very old age or, after they die.
In my experience, the most frugal and the most, frequently, punished are those who live on very limited means. They get the non-c pension and stretch it out. They might save 40 or 50 Euros a week. Over 20 years, they might accumulate 50 or 60k.
They get the bus, rather than taxis, they switch off every light, they heat the house very sparingly, they re use the same clothes, the same furniture, their groceries are miniscule. They never go on holiday, or stay away from home. The garden is dug with the same spade they had for decades. They might hope to leave a little something for their children or grand children.
Click to expand...
My parents are minted and my father uses the same spade to dig his (very large) garden.
My ex-parents in law are probably better off but have lived a miserable life of pointless frugality, doing all of the above and they will leave well over a million, not including their house, to what are mostly ungrateful children and grandchildren.
In a republic where we should aspire to equality of opportunity inheritance taxes are a good thing.
We should also encourage people to spend their money as it stimulates economic activity.

Meanness is also a very unattractive characteristic and should be discouraged where at all possible.

Allpartied said:
It's desperately sad to see their meagre inheritance gobbled up by the dark suited men from the Welfare Dept.
Click to expand...
...and men in light coloured suits... and chinos... and possibly jeans. And women...wearing whatever they choose to wear. I believe dress code standards have slipped in there something awful.

Allpartied said:
Anyone in such a situation , should hand over the cash to those grandchildren now, or spend it on taxis, or gin, or whatever. But don't let it sit , accumulating in the bank ,because it might be grabbed.
Click to expand...
Grabbed! Sure it was replaced by the State after the banks went bust. What do you think recapitalising the Banks was all about? They should console themselves with the fact that their savings disappeared when the Banks crashed and the State borrowed on the backs of their children and grandchildren to put the money back into their savings account. If it turns out they didn't need it maybe the State should take it all back after they die.

Yep, they can't bring it with them and their children or grandchildren will get their house, which has been inflated in price by bail outs etc way beyond any meagre savings they might have accumulated.


Oh, and they can also console themselves with the fact that their children and grandchildren have been paying their pension since they retired as nobody who receives a means tested OAP paid anywhere near enough PRSI to fund their own pension.

When they've taken all that into account they should be more than happy to see their estate return any money that they misappropriated from their fellow citizens through dishonesty or stupidity during their lifetime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top