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
Thanks so much for that. The monies owed will be significant over last 25 yrs.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.
Thanks so much for that. The monies owed will be significant over last 25 yrs.
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.Took over relatives financial affairs as now in nursing home. Getting Non contrib pension for last 25 yrs whilst having over 350k in cash.
Social welfare have written looking for update on financial affairs and will respond with all correct info.
So, both Revenue and SW have written separately looking for info?Revenue wrote looking for update on finances for the first time ever.
How do you know it’s the first time?Revenue wrote looking for update on finances for the first time ever.
Does your relative have the capacity to reply? If not, is it your job to respond on their behalf?Will respond truthfully
I'm confused.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.
It means this situation is not unusual.I'm confused.
What has that got to do with the original poster's questions?
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.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.
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.
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.
My parents are minted and my father uses the same spade to dig his (very large) garden.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.
...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.It's desperately sad to see their meagre inheritance gobbled up by the dark suited men from the Welfare Dept.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?