Over payment non contributory pension help

[Marsupial]

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.

Right then, let's look at the imaginary €50k of savings for our 86 year old pensioner.

Year 1:
The first €20k will be disregarded for the N-C pension means test.
That leaves €30K of which:
The first €10k will result in a reduction of €10 per week from the weekly pension.
The next €10k will result in a further reduction of €20 per week from the weekly pension.
And the final €10k will result in a further reduction of €40 per week from the weekly pension.
So our imaginary OAP's non-contributory pension will be reduced by a total of €70 a week.

This means that they can no longer save the €40 or €50 that you mention in your example. Instead they're €30 a week worse off.
That's €1,560 a year. So, at the end of year 1, our now 87 year old pensioner will have had to withdraw €1,560 from their savings to make up the loss. Leaving him or her with savings of €48,440.

Year two: s/he now has savings of €48,440 which, for the means test, is rounded down to €48k

Application of the means test means that their pension reduction will be €62 a week. Once again they won't be able to save the weekly €40 or €50 that you mention. And they'll be a net €22 a week worse off. That's €1,144 a year.

So, at the end of year 2, our now 88 year old pensioner must withdraw €1,144 from their savings to make up the loss.

Year three: they now have savings of over €47,000 which for the means test is rounded down to €47K and their weekly pension is reduced by €58. At year-end, our 89 year old will have to withdraw about €1,000 from their savings, leaving them with €46,000.

and so on .........

until ............

by the time our hypothetical OAP reaches age 94, they'll have reached break-even, and then, at some stage in their 95th year they'll be able to start saving again!

I'm sorry, but I completely fail to see the problem here.

Mind you, if you were to suggest that the non-contributory pension for this frugal, hypothetical, OAP is a bit on the high side, then I'd be inclined to agree with you!

 

[Allpartied]

Right then, let's look at the imaginary €50k of savings for our 86 year old pensioner.

Year 1:
The first €20k will be disregarded for the N-C pension means test.
That leaves €30K of which:
The first €10k will result in a reduction of €10 per week from the weekly pension.
The next €10k will result in a further reduction of €20 per week from the weekly pension.
And the final €10k will result in a further reduction of €40 per week from the weekly pension.
So our imaginary OAP's non-contributory pension will be reduced by a total of €70 a week.

This means that they can no longer save the €40 or €50 that you mention in your example. Instead they're €30 a week worse off.
That's €1,560 a year. So, at the end of year 1, our now 87 year old pensioner will have had to withdraw €1,560 from their savings to make up the loss. Leaving him or her with savings of €48,440.

Year two: s/he now has savings of €48,440 which, for the means test, is rounded down to €48k

Application of the means test means that their pension reduction will be €62 a week. Once again they won't be able to save the weekly €40 or €50 that you mention. And they'll be a net €22 a week worse off. That's €1,144 a year.

So, at the end of year 2, our now 88 year old pensioner must withdraw €1,144 from their savings to make up the loss.

Year three: they now have savings of over €47,000 which for the means test is rounded down to €47K and their weekly pension is reduced by €58. At year-end, our 89 year old will have to withdraw about €1,000 from their savings, leaving them with €46,000.

and so on .........

until ............

by the time our hypothetical OAP reaches age 94, they'll have reached break-even, and then, at some stage in their 95th year they'll be able to start saving again!

I'm sorry, but I completely fail to see the problem here.

Mind you, if you were to suggest that the non-contributory pension for this frugal, hypothetical, OAP is a bit on the high side, then I'd be inclined to agree with you!

None of this happens in the cases I am referring to. The pensioner saves money, year by year and doesn't inform the Welfare of their frugality.
The Dept isn't integrated with the banking system. It would be great if it was and these cases could be avoided.

Instead, what happens is the pensioner continues to save and the figure accumulates. Most likely, as they get older, they spend less and less. Family members assist, with shopping, bills and other daily expenses. They give care, they keep their loved one in some comfort.

Then the inevitable happens and they pass away.

At this stage the grey faced men, in chinos or suits, wander in and take a look at the deceased bank account. If they discover a figure above the threshold, they declare fraudulent benefit claim and grab the lot.

I'm not complaining , thems the rules.

My advice to anyone approaching the threshold is to spend the savings. If they want to leave something for their kids or grand kids, then buy diamonds, or vintage champagne. Then their loved ones can liquidate the asset and happy days. But do not , under any circumstances, ,allow the money to accumulate as cash in a bank account.

Leitrim woman’s estate challenges claim she was overpaid €75,000 in State pension

Ann O'Loughlin A legal challenge has been brought over a decision a woman was overpaid €75,000 means tested non-contributory State pension payments for eight years until her death. Brigid Early…

kildare-nationalist.ie

 

[Allpartied]

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.

I agree, inheritance tax should be 100%, on everything above 500k. And 25% on everything else.

We should also encourage people to spend their money as it stimulates economic activity.

In this scenario, the money would be spent, ,by their kids or grand kids.

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

Meanness is not really a healthy description of a generation who grew up in the 30's or 40's and learnt frugality. Its a characteristic of some and not, necessarily, a bad one.

...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.


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.

Ditto, the generation from the depression, the Emergency, the countless recessions, the immigrants who laboured uninsured in England, sending a few quid to their mother. The generation who built the state, and your prosperity.

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.

I'm talking about people who never had a chance to own their own home.

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.

Not worthy of comment.

 

[Marsupial]

At this stage the grey faced men, in chinos or suits, wander in and take a look at the deceased bank account. If they discover a figure above the threshold, they declare fraudulent benefit claim and grab the lot.

Complete and utter balderdash. What happens is that the DSP arrears unit will carefully calculate the amount of overpayment on a year by year basis and will then seek repayment of the total overpaid. And not a cent more.
(And that's what happened in the court case that you linked to.)

 

[Allpartied]

Complete and utter balderdash. What happens is that the DSP arrears unit will carefully calculate the amount of overpayment on a year by year basis and will then seek repayment of the total overpaid. And not a cent more.

(And that's what happened in the court case that you linked to.)

Well, obviously, they can't claim money that wasn't paid. But they can take the entire amount that was paid. Not just overpaid, but if they declare fraud, all of the money paid. This woman, was paid 75k, over 8 years. Thats the entire amount of non-c pension for the duration.
She was paid the non-c for 30 years. At some point, 8 years before she died, she went over the limit and, everything, claimed after that moment was declared fraud and repayment demanded. Her only source of income was the non-c pension and she saved this amount from that income.

 

[Foodie1]

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.


...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.


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.

Interesting comments from all. We are keen to sort this out but am wondering is it best left now until time of probate ? Relative hadnt a clue about money and form filling ever in her life and this is the mess we are now in.
I suspect there are many more like her out there!

 

[Protocol]

I presume it would make a difference whether the lump-sum was present at the time of making the initial claim, or whether the lump-sum was saved since the pension started.

If the lump-sum was present when making the claim age 65/66, then it looks like deliberate non-disclosure of relevant facts?

 

[Protocol]

How often do these means-tests occur? Just at the initial claim?

 

[Purple]

I agree, inheritance tax should be 100%, on everything above 500k. And 25% on everything else.

That seems a bit extreme.

In this scenario, the money would be spent, ,by their kids or grand kids.

Yes, but later. Sooner is better.

Meanness is not really a healthy description of a generation who grew up in the 30's or 40's and learnt frugality. Its a characteristic of some and not, necessarily, a bad one.

The generation who grew up in the 30's are nearly all dead.

Ditto, the generation from the depression, the Emergency, the countless recessions, the immigrants who laboured uninsured in England, sending a few quid to their mother.

Ditto.

The generation who built the state, and your prosperity.

No, they make a complete haems of things. They wrecked the economy at least twice and presided over a repressive country where children and minorities were horribly abused.

It was the generation who are now in their 50's who really started to improve things and the generation now in their 30's and younger who turned us into the open liberal country we are now. From an economic perspective it was the EEC/EU that brought prosperity.

I'm talking about people who never had a chance to own their own home.

The frugal savers on low incomes? They will be entitled to a means tested pension.

Not worthy of comment.

What do you think is incorrect?
Do you think that misappropriated money should not be returned?
Do you think the State didn't bail out the depositors?

 

[NoRegretsCoyote]

I presume it would make a difference whether the lump-sum was present at the time of making the initial claim, or whether the lump-sum was saved since the pension started.

I don't think the distinction is that important. Pensioner is obliged to inform DSP once they are over the threshold for whatever reason: saving, gift, house sale, etc.

If the lump-sum was present when making the claim age 65/66, then it looks like deliberate non-disclosure of relevant facts?

It could be inadvertent. Not everyone is as organised with their financial affairs as your typical AAM contributor.

From what I read in the media DSP only really crack down in cases of personation. In my extended family I know of one case of prolonged overpayment of child benefit which when discovered DSP were happy with an effort to repay over the course of literally decades. No interest or penalties applied.

 

[Foodie1]

I don't think the distinction is that important. Pensioner is obliged to inform DSP once they are over the threshold for whatever reason: saving, gift, house sale, etc.

It could be inadvertent. Not everyone is as organised with their financial affairs as your typical AAM contributor.

From what I read in the media DSP only really crack down in cases of personation. In my extended family I know of one case of prolonged overpayment of child benefit which when discovered DSP were happy with an effort to repay over the course of literally decades. No interest or penalties applied.

Just to give an update. After much paperwork going back and forth over 7 months, my relative did pay back a 6 figure sum. Fair deal re assessment now done and all sorted finally.
The lesson here is many pensioners in Ireland will find themselves in trouble either at fair Deal stage or probate when this is discovered.

 

[ClubMan]

The lesson here is many pensioners in Ireland will find themselves in trouble either at fair Deal stage or probate when this is discovered.

Why do you think that "many" pensioners are receiving the non-contributory pension when they should not be?
Or that those who are don't sort it out before 25 years of "over payments" have elapsed?

 

[Foodie1]

Why do you think that "many" pensioners are receiving the non-contributory pension when they should not be?
Or that those who are don't sort it out before 25 years of "over payments" have elapsed?

Purely on hearsay of friends dealing with probate where the issue was discovered and unknown to the family. I think things were not as stringent 30 yrs ago and in my relatives case completely clueless about these issues.

 

[mb2024]

Just to give an update. After much paperwork going back and forth over 7 months, my relative did pay back a 6 figure sum. Fair deal re assessment now done and all sorted finally.
The lesson here is many pensioners in Ireland will find themselves in trouble either at fair Deal stage or probate when this is discovered.

I’m curious did they have to pay entire amount back ? Very difficult situation to sort

 

[Foodie1]

Yes they did! Huge money

 

[mb2024]

Yes they did! Huge money

 

[mb2024]

I am dealing with a similar situation for family member, v stressful.
I’m trying to work out calculations of what overpayment might be, do they count some savings as income? Or is it he/she wasn’t entitled to it first day? Would the savings be classed as income and be reduced each year? I know you’re entitled to 20k savings etc

 

[Foodie1]

I am dealing with a similar situation for family member, v stressful.
I’m trying to work out calculations of what overpayment might be, do they count some savings as income? Or is it he/she wasn’t entitled to it first day? Would the savings be classed as income and be reduced each year? I know you’re entitled to 20k savings etc

They work out how much you owe. Any savings over 20k automatically mean my relative wasnt entitled to the non contrib pension as never paid PRSI. So work out how much pension has been wrongly paid to your relative and that is your figure owed. No interest was applied in our case. Bank and savings records were supplied going back 25 years.

 

[BlackandBlue]

Any savings over 20k automatically mean my relative wasnt entitled to the non contrib pension as never paid PRSI.

Not strictly true.
per post 1 their relative had significant savings which went against them.

I am dealing with a similar situation for family member, v stressful.
I’m trying to work out calculations of what overpayment might be, do they count some savings as income?

There is a means test based on savings etc. citizens information link here.

 

[mb2024]

They work out how much you owe. Any savings over 20k automatically mean my relative wasnt entitled to the non contrib pension as never paid PRSI. So work out how much pension has been wrongly paid to your relative and that is your figure owed. No interest was applied in our case. Bank and savings records were supplied going back 25 years.

Ok thank you. That makes sense

They work out how much you owe. Any savings over 20k automatically mean my relative wasnt entitled to the non contrib pension as never paid PRSI. So work out how much pension has been wrongly paid to your relative and that is your figure owed. No interest was applied in our case. Bank and savings records were supplied going back 25 years.

ok thank you, that makes sense.