Disabled grandad claims lottery win ruined his life.

Is he an idiot or has he been treated badly by having his benefits withdrawn?

"A disabled granddad who won £80,000 on the lottery claims the windfall wrecked his life because he lost his benefits. Daniel Millar, aged 63, spent the money within weeks on gifts for his family, luxury holidays, home improvements and clothes.
However, he did not tell the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) about his stroke of luck and when they found out they stopped several of his benefits. Due to the lottery win he no longer qualifies for income support, housing benefit, a council tax reduction or any other means-tested handouts.

Daniel, who has long term health problems, claims he and his wife Bridget, who is his carer and gets £62 a week, are destitute.  He added: ‘We just get a bit of luck and all of a sudden, we are punished for it.’

Daniel joins a string of lottery winners, including disabled George Grant whose benefits were cancelled after he spent £20,000 on a trip to Nashville, who claim their unexpected injection of cash has ruined their lives."




Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/24/disabled-granddad-says-his-80000-lottery-win-ruined-his-life-as-it-lost-him-his-benefits-7339338/?ito=cbshare

Hmmmm, well he’s an idiot for spunking all the money when he’s on benefits but I don’t think people should have their benefits stopped unless they come into a life-changing amount of money.

If he has no money left I don't really see how he can be denied benefits...he isn't hiding it now, its gone.

I can understand how someone who has not had much money and suddenly gets a windfall, would be very tempted to splash out on a holiday and give his kids something.
But....many people who work hard all their lives and never claim a penny never get that opportunity, so actually, I think he is an idiot.

It's a well-known fact that getting income-based benefits depends on how much income or capital you have. You can't just win £80,000 and expect to still get the benefits.

He says he's being "punished". No, he's not. What he should have done is use the money to live on, not spend it all in a couple of months. That's the point of means-tested benefits - they're supposed to be for people who don't have much money. He had £80,000!

Raggamuffin wrote:He says he's being "punished". No, he's not. What he should have done is use the money to live on, not spend it all in a couple of months. That's the point of means-tested benefits - they're supposed to be for people who don't have much money. He had £80,000!

But if he had claimed that they’d have still stopped his benefits. I think that’s a little unfair somehow.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:He says he's being "punished". No, he's not. What he should have done is use the money to live on, not spend it all in a couple of months. That's the point of means-tested benefits - they're supposed to be for people who don't have much money. He had £80,000!

But if he had claimed that they’d have still stopped his benefits. I think that’s a little unfair somehow.

Why? The point of benefits is to be able to live because you can't work or you have no source of income or capital. He had £80,000 so he didn't need benefits. Why would someone prefer to be on benefits than pay their own way?

Perhaps he could get some of the money back from his two sons and daughter - if they haven't spent it. I don't understand why people immediately spend a windfall on unnecessary things without thinking of the future.

He could have purchased a cheap property and let it out and then lived on the income, or invested the money. More fool him for giving it away.

unfair to stop his benefits?

it doesn't say how long he's been ''disabled'' but looking at the picture he hardly looks bed bound to me, nor is he in a wheelchair, nor even much wrong with him at all. On the contrary, he looks a picture of good health so not sure how much 'care' his wife has to give him.

the tax payer funds him and his wife to stay at home and not work at all. rebates given on everything and he suddenly gets £80,000. Him and his wife could have lived very comfortably on that money for 3 years and still given his kids a grand each and had a nice holiday.

so he thinks he can just spunk it while the tax payer continues to pay out for him? is that fair?

besides, despite ''having his benefits cut'' they still receive £143.84 between them so not destitute just having to tighten their belts



fucking punks

Okay this is my point: is it fair to punish someone by taking away their prize money (and it wasn’t exactly life-changing money, I’ve spent nearly that in a year at one point in my life) just because they can’t work and are on benefits?

If somebody invested £80,000 in today's market, they would be lucky to make 6% p.a. on it...

That's maybe £4,800 if they're lucky, and that's not going to increase with inflation.. Allowing for some capital growth, the net return will be lower again.

Considering that a "cheap" property around my neighbourhood will cost the equivalent of £200,000 sterling, 80k will barely give you a healthy deposit while the expected rent might cover a 120k morgage and some outgoings..

Invest that capital in managed funds or shares instead, and over here you might clear 5% -- good luck to anybody who thinks they will be living the high life on £4,000 a year.

eddie wrote:Okay this is my point: is it fair to punish someone by taking away their prize money (and it wasn’t exactly life-changing money, I’ve spent nearly that in a year at one point in my life) just because they can’t work and are on benefits?

No one has taken his prize money, he spent it, which was pretty stupid.

The tax payers are funding his lifestyle, so when he did come into a bit of money he should have used it wisely rather than keep quiet and go on a spending spree many people who work hard cant afford.

On the other hand, I don't see how, now the money has gone, he isn't legally entitled to some benefits if his income is so low and he has no savings left.

gelico wrote:
unfair to stop his benefits?

it doesn't say how long he's been ''disabled'' but looking at the picture he hardly looks bed bound to me, nor is he in a wheelchair, nor even much wrong with him at all.  On the contrary, he looks a picture of good health so not sure how much 'care' his wife has to give him.

the tax payer funds him and his wife to stay at home and not work at all.  rebates given on everything and he suddenly gets £80,000.  Him and his wife could have lived very comfortably on that money for 3 years and still given his kids a grand each and had a nice holiday.

so he thinks he can just spunk it while the tax payer continues to pay out for him?  is that fair?

besides, despite ''having his benefits cut'' they still receive £143.84 between them so not destitute just having to tighten their belts



fucking punks

He looks pretty OK in some pics, but then there are the posed pics that papers often print to garner a bit of sympathy for whoever is this weeks hard done to 'victim'.

Bemusing to see all these people MOANING about how the lottery ''ruined'' their lives. Diddums.


One teenage girl who won the jackpot angrily complained that she was too young to have received the cheque. Poor ickle lamb.


Wait for this - she wanted to sue Camelot .... for throwing so much money at her > https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/reports/news/a49671/17-year-old-girl-won-lottery-ruined-life/
...  

They made a TV programme a few years ago interviewing a few people who had had big wins on the lottery.
It was amazing to see that about 3 out of the 4 they interviewed said they were happier before they won.
Some had bought huge houses and missed their own friends and neighbourhood, one had ploughed millions into a restaurant, even though he didn't know the first thing about that business...he lost his money.

The one person who seemed unaffected was the 'sensible' one. He had kept his job, the same house, the same lifestyle other than upgrading his car and having a not too extravagant holiday.

Just shows though...contentment comes from within not from the bank balance.

No, it just shows that most people are absolutely fucking stupid and have no idea how to be happy and probably took most of their problems with them into Richdom.
Why? Because they spent no time at all in their lives thinking about what they really wanted.

HE was a prat for spending it all, but please don't judge disabled people just because they "look ok"

nicko wrote:HE was a prat for spending it all,  but please don't judge disabled people just because they "look ok"

I completely agree with that.

nicko wrote:HE was a prat for spending it all,  but please don't judge disabled people just because they "look ok"

Back pain is an odd thing in that you can have good days and bad days, but that doesn't mean you're fit for work either way.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:Okay this is my point: is it fair to punish someone by taking away their prize money (and it wasn’t exactly life-changing money, I’ve spent nearly that in a year at one point in my life) just because they can’t work and are on benefits?

No one has taken his prize money, he spent it, which was pretty stupid.

The tax payers are funding his lifestyle, so when he did come into a bit of money he should have used it wisely rather than keep quiet and go on a spending spree many people who work hard cant afford.

On the other hand, I don't see how, now the money has gone, he isn't legally entitled to some benefits if his income is so low and he has no savings left.

It's a tricky situation. Had he kept the money and used it for living expenses for a few years, at some point he would have been below the threshold for claiming benefits again. However, you can't spend that much money in two months and the plead poverty.

Now he can't claim housing benefit because he spent or gave away the money he should have used for it. If his children still have the money, they should give it back. I'm amazed nobody even wondered how winning that money would affect his benefits.

eddie wrote:Okay this is my point: is it fair to punish someone by taking away their prize money (and it wasn’t exactly life-changing money, I’ve spent nearly that in a year at one point in my life) just because they can’t work and are on benefits?

You mean is it fair to expect someone on benefits to use such prize money instead of continuing to claim benefits? Yes it is. Why should he get tax payers' money when he has his own money?

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

If somebody invested £80,000 in today's market, they would be lucky to make 6% p.a. on it...

That's maybe £4,800 if they're lucky, and that's not going to increase with inflation.. Allowing for some capital growth, the net return will be lower again.

Considering that a "cheap" property around my neighbourhood will cost the equivalent of £200,000 sterling, 80k will barely give you a healthy deposit while the expected rent might cover a 120k morgage and some outgoings..

Invest that capital in managed funds or shares instead, and over here you might clear 5%  --  good luck to anybody who thinks they will be living the high life on £4,000 a year.

You can buy a house in some areas with £80,000 but not many places.

Anyway, it's not really about investment and returns. He had £80,000 which he could have lived on for a few years instead of claiming benefits.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

No one has taken his prize money, he spent it, which was pretty stupid.

The tax payers are funding his lifestyle, so when he did come into a bit of money he should have used it wisely rather than keep quiet and go on a spending spree many people who work hard cant afford.

On the other hand, I don't see how, now the money has gone, he isn't legally entitled to some benefits if his income is so low and he has no savings left.

It's a tricky situation. Had he kept the money and used it for living expenses for a few years, at some point he would have been below the threshold for claiming benefits again. However, you can't spend that much money in two months and the plead poverty.

Now he can't claim housing benefit because he spent or gave away the money he should have used for it. If his children still have the money, they should give it back. I'm amazed nobody even wondered how winning that money would affect his benefits.

His kids should pay his rent with the money he gave them...for however long it lasts.

I imagine if people are receiving benefits the council is at liberty to check how much money they actually have saved, I know if a person has over a certain amount their benefits are cut or stopped altogether.

However if he really cant get back any of the 80 grand, I imagine the local council will have to eventually start paying his rent again...he cant live on the streets.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's a tricky situation. Had he kept the money and used it for living expenses for a few years, at some point he would have been below the threshold for claiming benefits again. However, you can't spend that much money in two months and the plead poverty.

Now he can't claim housing benefit because he spent or gave away the money he should have used for it. If his children still have the money, they should give it back. I'm amazed nobody even wondered how winning that money would affect his benefits.

His kids should pay his rent with the money he gave them...for however long it lasts.

I imagine if people are receiving benefits the council is at liberty to check how much money they actually have saved, I know if a person has over a certain amount their benefits are cut or stopped altogether.

However if he really cant get back any of the 80 grand, I imagine the local council will have to eventually start paying his rent again...he cant live on the streets.

I dunno - they could just say it's not their problem, and that he shouldn't have spent the money. He's lucky he didn't get prosecuted for benefit fraud - not declaring a change in circumstance is benefit fraud.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

His kids should pay his rent with the money he gave them...for however long it lasts.

I imagine if people are receiving benefits the council is at liberty to check how much money they actually have saved, I know if a person has over a certain amount their benefits are cut or stopped altogether.

However if he really cant get back any of the 80 grand, I imagine the local council will have to eventually start paying his rent again...he cant live on the streets.

I dunno - they could just say it's not their problem, and that he shouldn't have spent the money. He's lucky he didn't get prosecuted for benefit fraud - not declaring a change in circumstance is benefit fraud.

Yes, they could have prosecuted him...he is lucky in that respect.

It’s not fair though. He can’t work due to ill-health (suspicions aside for a minute) and he wins money. Shouldn’t he be able to keep at least some of it for luxuries and still get some living allowance?

If a working person wins money they get to keep it.
If a sick person wins money they have to be punished for it.

I don’t get why there can’t be a middle ground.

nicko wrote:HE was a prat for spending it all,  but please don't judge disabled people just because they "look ok"

ok nicko, that's a fair enough comment

but in his holiday snap he looked great

for the DM however, he has his sad face on, his crutches by his side (where were they on the boat? he was standing up just fine)

he also had chunky rings on his fingers
and an ashtray full of cigarette butts

cigarettes nigh on £10 per pack

I judge on what I see, nicko, and he sure did ''look ok'' to me

eddie wrote:It’s not fair though. He can’t work due to ill-health (suspicions aside for a minute) and he wins money. Shouldn’t he be able to keep at least some of it for luxuries and still get some living allowance?

If a working person wins money they get to keep it.
If a sick person wins money they have to be punished for it.

I don’t get why there can’t be a middle ground.

But he could have kept it all Eddie, no one could take it off him. He didnt declare it, that was the problem, he kept his winnings and carried on collecting benefits, and that's not really on.

eddie wrote:It’s not fair though. He can’t work due to ill-health (suspicions aside for a minute) and he wins money. Shouldn’t he be able to keep at least some of it for luxuries and still get some living allowance?

If a working person wins money they get to keep it.
If a sick person wins money they have to be punished for it.

I don’t get why there can’t be a middle ground.

well, judging by the photos he is clearly not bed bound, not even impaired mobility by the looks of it. So maybe he needs crutches now and again, but obviously does not need round the clock care so his missus will just have to go get a part time job. I wont affect her pay as his carer.

that's ridiculous eddie.

no one is being ''punished'' just being asked to pay for himself for a while.

there is a middle ground anyway

a person is allowed so much in savings before it affects benefits which I think starts at £4000 and can go up to £15,000 depending on circumstances and particular benefits involved.

he was just being a selfish arsehole

eddie wrote:It’s not fair though. He can’t work due to ill-health (suspicions aside for a minute) and he wins money. Shouldn’t he be able to keep at least some of it for luxuries and still get some living allowance?

If a working person wins money they get to keep it.
If a sick person wins money they have to be punished for it.

I don’t get why there can’t be a middle ground.

if you've got 80k in your bank account you cannot claim benefits...nobody can. You can have 10k before your benefits get stopped....which I think is fair.

eddie wrote:It’s not fair though. He can’t work due to ill-health (suspicions aside for a minute) and he wins money. Shouldn’t he be able to keep at least some of it for luxuries and still get some living allowance?

If a working person wins money they get to keep it.
If a sick person wins money they have to be punished for it.

I don’t get why there can’t be a middle ground.

He can keep some of it. I think it's about £6,000 before it affects benefits, and after you have £16,000 you can't get benefits.

It's nothing to do with him being sick, it's to do with him being on mean-tested benefits. A person who is not claiming benefits can do what they like with their savings or winnings, but people who are getting State benefits have to account for them. You can't just spend a ton of money in a couple of months and then say you're broke - he should have used the money to pay his living expenses/rent. It would have lasted him several years.

Benefits are meant for those who have no means to acquire money via work or other ways, they're not supposed to be compensation for being sick or old or whatever. The guy had money and he disposed of it instead of using it to live on.

Here's another couple who won £50,000 on the lottery and spent it in eight months. They did declare their winnings, and their benefits stopped. However, after eight months they wanted the benefits back because they had spent their winnings, and they were told they couldn't have them.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12086871/Lottery-winners-demand-benefits-again-after-spending-50k-in-eight-months.html

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I dunno - they could just say it's not their problem, and that he shouldn't have spent the money. He's lucky he didn't get prosecuted for benefit fraud - not declaring a change in circumstance is benefit fraud.

Yes, they could have prosecuted him...he is lucky in that respect.

They could also have asked for the benefits he got after he won the money to be paid back.

These days, a win of less than a million is not enough to significantly change anyone's life. Just buy a nicer house - a neat pile on a sunny spot, ... plus a couple of lush cars, few nice holidays, that's it!  

DON'T go mad and buy racehorses and fleets of supercars,  don't cuss out your boss and tell him to fk his job, carry on working!  Leaving your job is too drastic and disorientating.

As for  people on benefits, no matter how big their lottery win, they always run out of money sooner or later.

Perhaps they are just not used to financial planning! Too used to being looked after. Not everything is means tested tho.  So even when their benefits are refused, they may still keep getting enough  from the DSS/DWP to keep them ticking over. Just not the full sum that's all.

Jules wrote:As for  people on benefits, no matter how big their lottery win, they always run out of money sooner or later.

Perhaps they are just not used to financial planning! Too used to being looked after. Not everything is means tested tho.  So even when their benefits are refused, they may still keep getting enough  from the DSS/DWP to keep them ticking over. Just not the full sum that's all.

The guy gets DLA I think, and that's not means tested. I doubt that would pay the rent though.

Raggamuffin wrote:Here's another couple who won £50,000 on the lottery and spent it in eight months. They did declare their winnings, and their benefits stopped. However, after eight months they wanted the benefits back because they had spent their winnings, and they were told they couldn't have them.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12086871/Lottery-winners-demand-benefits-again-after-spending-50k-in-eight-months.html

This kind of thing really winds me up.   50K and they blew it in months?   They're both young, healthy and fit and still out of work.  Can't get work in Guernsey, travel and go someplace you can get work.  With that money they could have set up their own business, or invested it, but no...it gets blown on designer gear and 50 inch tv's and £70 a day on food!

Now, they are whining about having had the worst Xmas ever...aw fucking diddums.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Jules wrote:As for  people on benefits, no matter how big their lottery win, they always run out of money sooner or later.

Perhaps they are just not used to financial planning! Too used to being looked after. Not everything is means tested tho.  So even when their benefits are refused, they may still keep getting enough  from the DSS/DWP to keep them ticking over. Just not the full sum that's all.

The guy gets DLA I think, and that's not means tested. I doubt that would pay the rent though.

Disability allowance isn't means tested, his wife also receives a carers allowance....I doubt the two add up to much though.

It's not just that some jackpot winners lose everything, you get some real HORROR stories as well. (Whoever made that quote about fortune & misfortune being equally unwelcome impostors, knew what  he was saying!)
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2017/08/23/kentucky-lottery-winner-died-penniless/594716001/

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The guy gets DLA I think, and that's not means tested. I doubt that would pay the rent though.

Disability allowance isn't means tested,  his wife also receives a carers allowance....I doubt the two add up to much though.

I already said that.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Here's another couple who won £50,000 on the lottery and spent it in eight months. They did declare their winnings, and their benefits stopped. However, after eight months they wanted the benefits back because they had spent their winnings, and they were told they couldn't have them.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/12086871/Lottery-winners-demand-benefits-again-after-spending-50k-in-eight-months.html

This kind of thing really winds me up.   50K and they blew it in months?   They're both young, healthy and fit and still out of work.  Can't get work in Guernsey, travel and go someplace you can get work.  With that money they could have set up their own business, or invested it, but no...it gets blown on designer gear and 50 inch tv's and £70 a day on food!

Now, they are whining about having had the worst Xmas ever...aw fucking diddums.

Exactly. It sounds like they were expected to spend no more than £26,000 in eight months, and therefore should have £24,000 left, hence the refusal to give them back their benefits. I think £26,000 in eight months is way too generous. The money they won should last them a couple of years at least.

Jules wrote:It's not just that some jackpot winners lose everything, you get some real HORROR stories as well. (Whoever made that quote about fortune & misfortune being equally unwelcome impostors, knew what  he was saying!)
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2017/08/23/kentucky-lottery-winner-died-penniless/594716001/

They keep saying he "lost" the money. He didn't lose it, he spent it on unnecessary things.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Disability allowance isn't means tested,  his wife also receives a carers allowance....I doubt the two add up to much though.

I already said that.

So you did.