Grandmother, 63, who 'went mad' with £22,500 bingo win and went on dream Florida trip has her benefits stopped because she failed to declare winnings - and now says she could lose home

Jean Jones spent a £22,500 bingo jackpot and had most of her benefits stopped
The grandma spent winnings on Walt Disney holiday and a chair for her arthritis
Mrs Jones is scared she may lose her home as she can't afford £326 monthly rent
She is currently receiving £229 per month in personal independence payments

Mrs Jones said the DWP had claimed she had given away half the money to her niece for safekeeping - something she denied. And she said she was on antidepressants because of the stress triggered by the risk of losing her home.

She said: 'I keep getting letters from the council saying they're going to evict me because I can't pay the rent.

'I've run out of food now and I don't get my PIP for another week. I'm living on what's in my cupboard. I'm living on egg and chips or tinned tomatoes.

'I can't even go to a food bank because of my chronic diarrhoea. They don't have food I'm able to eat. I have to walk everywhere as I have no money for buses.

'It's been seven months, I just want my benefits back.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6903363/Grandmother-63-won-22-500-bingo-jackpot-benefits-stopped-fears-lose-home.html

How was that chronic diarrhoea on holiday?

I always wonder if winners understand how painful winning could be. Besides taxes, they don't seem to realize that their income status changes and must be adjusted.

Live and learn.

I won £10 on the Post Code Lottery, I didn't declare it. Should I be worried ? I,v got the shits worrying about it !

Spendthrift granny broke the rules by concealing her windfall from the DWP. She's got no leg to stand on.

nicko wrote:I won £10 on the Post Code Lottery,  I didn't declare it.  Should I be worried ? I,v got the shits  worrying about it !

Ssshhh Nicko, just act normally and hope no one notices.

nicko wrote:I won £10 on the Post Code Lottery,  I didn't declare it.  Should I be worried ? I,v got the shits  worrying about it !

I think they are looking for bigger fish, guppy.

I used to breed Guppies, [ not personally of course] used to watch the fry be eaten by the Angel Fish, pissed me off somewhat !

nicko wrote:I used to breed Guppies, [ not personally of course] used to watch the fry be eaten by the Angel Fish, pissed me off somewhat !

I did too. I had a device that permitted the fry to drop into a protected space where the bigger fish couldn't reach them. It was a clear plastic device with holes in it that allowed the small ones to escape, where the big fish couldn't eat them.

Tropical fish...it's a brutal environment.

Original Quill wrote:I always wonder if winners understand how painful winning could be.  Besides taxes, they don't seem to realize that their income status changes and must be adjusted.

Live and learn.

In the UK, lottery/gambling winnings do not attract tax, though any interest accrued from investing the proceeds does so.

The biggest problem would appear to be from the resulting media publicity followed by a stream of "hard case" begging letters, confidence tricksters and the unexpected appearance of distant relatives anxious to re-establish contact.

It's irrelevant that she's a grandmother for a start. Why don't people understand income-based benefits? They should read the rules before they claim them. Do they really expect the tax payers to fund them when they have loads of money?

When you think of the huge legalised tax avoidance fiddles the better off manage to get away with....this womans paltry win (in comparison) is a drop in the ocean.

Syl wrote:When you think of the huge legalised tax avoidance fiddles the better off manage to get away with....this womans paltry win (in comparison) is a drop in the ocean.

That's not the point. Someone fiddling their tax isn't taking money from the tax payers, they're simply not paying enough tax - on what they earned. People who get benefits are getting money from the tax payers, and if they cheat and hide money they acquired those benefits are rightly taken away.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:When you think of the huge legalised tax avoidance fiddles the better off manage to get away with....this womans paltry win (in comparison) is a drop in the ocean.

That's not the point. Someone fiddling their tax isn't taking money from the tax payers, they're simply not paying enough tax - on what they earned. People who get benefits are getting money from the tax payers, and if they cheat and hide money they acquired those benefits are rightly taken away.

She says she has spent it not hidden it.
A lavish holiday and a specially designed chair for arthritis cant come cheap.

I thought someone who was collecting benefits could have some savings without having those benefits stopped.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:



That's not the point. Someone fiddling their tax isn't taking money from the tax payers, they're simply not paying enough tax - on what they earned. P

She hid eople who get benefits are getting money from the tax payers, and if they cheat and hide money they acquired those benefits are rightly taken away.

She says she has spent it not hidden it.
A lavish holiday and a specially designed chair for arthritis cant come cheap.

I thought someone who was collecting benefits could have some savings without having those benefits stopped.  

She hid her win from the benefits people, but she was obliged to tell them about it. You can have a certain amount of savings before benefits are stopped, but not that much. If you win that kind of money whilst claiming benefits you're supposed to use it to live on, not on holidays. I don't get why people don't understand that benefits come from those who work and pay tax whilst the person claiming them doesn't have to lift a finger.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

She says she has spent it not hidden it.
A lavish holiday and a specially designed chair for arthritis cant come cheap.

I thought someone who was collecting benefits could have some savings without having those benefits stopped.  

She hid her win from the benefits people, but she was obliged to tell them about it. You can have a certain amount of savings before benefits are stopped, but not that much. If you win that kind of money whilst claiming benefits you're supposed to use it to live on, not on holidays. I don't get why people don't understand that benefits come from those who work and pay tax whilst the person claiming them doesn't have to lift a finger.

I do understand, I just think it's a shame if she is struggling with her health and unable to work, her windfall has caused her so many problems.
I take your point though.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She hid her win from the benefits people, but she was obliged to tell them about it. You can have a certain amount of savings before benefits are stopped, but not that much. If you win that kind of money whilst claiming benefits you're supposed to use it to live on, not on holidays. I don't get why people don't understand that benefits come from those who work and pay tax whilst the person claiming them doesn't have to lift a finger.

I do understand, I just think it's a shame if she is struggling with her health and unable to work, her windfall has caused her so many problems.
I take your point though.

Her windfall didn't cause her problems, she caused the problem by not telling the benefits people and by blowing a lot of the money on a holiday. If she'd used it for living expenses, she would still lose her benefits but she'd get them back again once she got below a certain level. She should have read the rules.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

I do understand, I just think it's a shame if she is struggling with her health and unable to work, her windfall has caused her so many problems.
I take your point though.

Her windfall didn't cause her problems, she caused the problem by not telling the benefits people and by blowing a lot of the money on a holiday. If she'd used it for living expenses, she would still lose her benefits but she'd get them back again once she got below a certain level. She should have read the rules.

Well I still feel sorry for her.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Her windfall didn't cause her problems, she caused the problem by not telling the benefits people and by blowing a lot of the money on a holiday. If she'd used it for living expenses, she would still lose her benefits but she'd get them back again once she got below a certain level. She should have read the rules.

Well I still feel sorry for her.

Why?

She's lucky she wasn't prosecuted for benefits fraud.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Well I still feel sorry for her.

Why?

She's lucky she wasn't prosecuted for benefits fraud.

Why...because she might have struggled all her life and because of her win (which I know she should have declared but didn't) she has ended up worse off than she was before.
She made a mistake, but compared to the fiddling politicians and bankers who screw you, me and everyone else in the country a lot more than she has....she is very small fry indeed.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why?

She's lucky she wasn't prosecuted for benefits fraud.

Why...because she might have struggled all her life and because of her win (which I know she should have declared but didn't) she has ended up worse off than she was before.
She made a mistake, but compared to the fiddling politicians and bankers who screw you, me and everyone else in the country  a lot more than she has....she is very small fry indeed.

I can agree to an extent...but I think it's more to do with her lack of intelligence.

Todays front page daily mirror for eg....if proof were needed.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/outrage-more-160-mps-make-14272357

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why?

She's lucky she wasn't prosecuted for benefits fraud.

Why...because she might have struggled all her life and because of her win (which I know she should have declared but didn't) she has ended up worse off than she was before.
She made a mistake, but compared to the fiddling politicians and bankers who screw you, me and everyone else in the country  a lot more than she has....she is very small fry indeed.

Struggled all her life? Who says so?

It's common sense that if you're on benefits and you come into money, your benefits are going to be affected. You don't lose out because you have the money you acquired to live on. Spending it on a holiday that many people who work couldn't afford is just asking for trouble.

The rules are clear - if people don't follow them, they only have themselves to blame. Many people struggle with health problem and they work - and then have to pay tax to contribute to those who don't.

Syl wrote:Todays front page daily mirror for eg....if proof were needed.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/outrage-more-160-mps-make-14272357

It's not relevant. This is about benefits.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

Why...because she might have struggled all her life and because of her win (which I know she should have declared but didn't) she has ended up worse off than she was before.
She made a mistake, but compared to the fiddling politicians and bankers who screw you, me and everyone else in the country  a lot more than she has....she is very small fry indeed.

I can agree to an extent...but I think it's more to do with her lack of intelligence.

She had enough intelligence to apply for benefits though.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:Todays front page daily mirror for eg....if proof were needed.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/outrage-more-160-mps-make-14272357

It's not relevant. This is about benefits.

It is relevant, it's about screwing the system.

Syl wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It's not relevant. This is about benefits.

It is relevant, it's about screwing the system.

Start a new thread then rather than take this one off topic.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I can agree to an extent...but I think it's more to do with her lack of intelligence.

She had enough intelligence to apply for benefits though.

That's not exactly brain surgery. There's a difference between being street wise and being smart.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Syl wrote:

Why...because she might have struggled all her life and because of her win (which I know she should have declared but didn't) she has ended up worse off than she was before.
She made a mistake, but compared to the fiddling politicians and bankers who screw you, me and everyone else in the country  a lot more than she has....she is very small fry indeed.

Struggled all her life? Who says so?

It's common sense that if you're on benefits and you come into money, your benefits are going to be affected. You don't lose out because you have the money you acquired to live on. Spending it on a holiday that many people who work couldn't afford is just asking for trouble.

The rules are clear - if people don't follow them, they only have themselves to blame. Many people struggle with health problem and they work - and then have to pay tax to contribute to those who don't.

She's clearly dumb and with no sense of propriety. She's the type who'll plaster it all over social media and then spend most of it on fast food and fags. She looks 79 not early 60s.

I feel sorry for her too, living on benefits can't afford you much fun. When she got the windfall, she probably just thought she could go do some things she'd always wanted to do, and be able to return to her benefits when the money ran out.

Obviously she was wrong and that's not the point of benefits, but I can see how the temptation to go "wheeeee" might be too great to resist when you've been living hand-to-mouth.

Sometimes we have a raffle in which someone will win a beautiful San Francisco home, with views overlooking the coast.

People don't realize you have to pay taxes on that home. Those taxes are more than the person makes in a year. Winning causes more headaches than pleasure.

>THE Ben Reilly< wrote:I feel sorry for her too, living on benefits can't afford you much fun. When she got the windfall, she probably just thought she could go do some things she'd always wanted to do, and be able to return to her benefits when the money ran out.

Obviously she was wrong and that's not the point of benefits, but I can see how the temptation to go "wheeeee" might be too great to resist when you've been living hand-to-mouth.

That's not what she thought. She could indeed have done that - within reason, but she thought she could just carry on getting benefits at the same time.

A trip to Florida cost £22,500, ? what else did she spend it on ?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

She had enough intelligence to apply for benefits though.

That's not exactly brain surgery.  
There's a difference between being street wise and being smart.

Indeed.
And in any case, people who struggle with the complexity of application forms can be helped.

The last time I had any dealings with the benefit system was for maternity benefits, decades ago. I remember that on the application form, they said that assistance to apply was available for those with poor eyesight, illiteracy, innumeracy, mental impairment,  or even a language barrier etc etc
[Tho I must say none of those conditions applied to me, I had a great job ATT and already owned my own home even back then]

Syl wrote:Todays front page daily mirror for eg....if proof were needed.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/outrage-more-160-mps-make-14272357

The unsophisticated petty crimes of ordinary people pale into insignificance when compared to what some MPs do. When MPs do break the law they are usually allowed to just apologise and repay the fiddled amount - - and that's the end of it.   


[I will move on to the MPs thread now,  so as not to go off topic any further in this one.]

This lady hasn't even apologised for fiddling the system. She's demanding her benefits back and seems to think she did nothing wrong.

Down here, lottery, lotto and gaming machine winnings are already taxed at the point of operation, so that the winnings are effectively "tax free" to the winner...

For those on welfare, small winnings might be allowed to 'slide' and be ignored by Centrelink (the gov't agency overseeing benefits and pensions), while more substantial prizes would be counted as part of that persons "eligible assets" for calculating benefits..

Invest those winnings, and if the income is large enough, it may affect the actual amount of benefits payed.


As for houses won in Art Unions/lotteries, as like those mentioned by Quill above  --  

* local council rates/"taxes" here are paid annually, without that large upfront 'tax' payment that goes to local gov'ts in the USA when somebody buys a home (here, state gov't stamp duty on house sales -- where applicable --  are paid during the sale process..);

* Tax office 'capital gains tax' (on investment properties) and state 'stamp duty' charges would only apply once the winner sold the house --  so they could effectively delay them for years, by either renting out the property (making it an investment, for tax purposes..), or declaring it their primary place of residence (avoiding capital gains tax if they reside it for long enough)..).

*  If made an investment property, income tax would be payable on the annual net income (i.e. rent minus expenses and allowable 'depreciations'..).

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Down here, lottery, lotto and gaming machine winnings are already taxed at the point of operation, so that the winnings are effectively "tax free" to the winner...

For those on welfare, small winnings might be allowed to 'slide' and be ignored by Centrelink (the gov't agency overseeing benefits and pensions), while more substantial prizes would be counted as part of that persons "eligible assets" for calculating benefits..

Invest those winnings, and if the income is large enough, it may affect the actual amount of benefits payed.


As for houses won in Art Unions/lotteries, as like those mentioned by Quill above  --  

* local council rates/"taxes" here are paid annually, without that large upfront 'tax' payment that goes to local gov'ts in the USA when somebody buys a home (here, state gov't stamp duty on house sales -- where applicable --  are paid during the sale process..);

* Tax office 'capital gains tax' (on investment properties) and state 'stamp duty' charges would only apply once the winner sold the house --  so they could effectively delay them for years, by either renting out the property (making it an investment, for tax purposes..), or declaring it their primary place of residence (avoiding capital gains tax if they reside it for long enough)..).

*  If made an investment property, income tax would be payable on the annual net income (i.e. rent minus expenses and allowable 'depreciations'..).

+1

More posts like this please wolf

Concise, factual and on topic