DWP ‘threatened to dock terminally-ill woman’s benefits’ if she paid for her own funeral

A terminally-ill woman was told by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that she risked being charged with an “offence” and would lose part of her benefits if she used an insurance policy windfall to pay for her own funeral.

DWP bosses told Sue Smith that spending the £3,700 in advance on her funeral would be seen as “deprivation of capital” – deliberately spending her savings in order to maintain entitlement to benefits.

Smith, from south Devon, had contacted DWP after being told about the £3,700 refund, because she wanted to be sure that she did not fall foul of any regulations if she spent the money on paying in advance for her funeral.

But when she approached DWP, and made it clear that she was terminally-ill, she was told that she could lose part of her employment and support allowance (ESA) payment – she has estimated that it could have cost her about £15 a week – and could even be seen as committing an “offence”.

Smith, who uses oxygen 24-hours-a-day, said she felt “threatened, hurt and distressed” by the warning, and was now at her “wit’s end”.

Smith said: “I expected them to agree that it was a good use of my own money.

“I could understand it if someone was given £100,000 from a lottery win or inheritance, blew it on a Ferrari, and then went back to DWP and said, ‘Sorry, I’m skint now, I want my benefits.’

“But this is not the case with me. Surely they need to rewrite the rules so there is clear provision to allow someone to pay to bury themselves once they are terminally-ill.”

Smith was told in May 2014 that she had between 12 and 18 months left to live, as a result of emphysema and other health conditions, and had an end-of-life care plan put in place by her local hospice, which involved making her will and funeral arrangements, and tidying her financial affairs.

She spent nine years with the Royal Navy, and then ran her own successful business for 15 years.

She became ill in 2001 after becoming injured in a chemical incident, but carried on working for another seven years.

Smith said: “If you can’t spend your own capital on your own burial, there is something seriously wrong with the regulations.

“I intend to fight on as best I can, but any little thing that causes anxiety and stress affects my breathing and tires me out more.”

After Disability News Service approached the department about her case, a DWP manager phoned Smith and told her that she could cash the cheque and spend it on her funeral.

Smith said she now wanted this position to be written into ESA regulations so that if someone is terminally-ill, they have “the automatic right to spend a lump sum within reason on their funeral”.

A DWP spokeswoman said: “Income-related ESA takes into account all of a claimant’s available capital, including any policies or assets that can be cashed in.

“This is to ensure that there is provision for those with limited funds of their own.

“A decision-maker looks at each case on its own merits to decide whether any capital asset should be taken into account. These decisions carry a right of appeal.”

She added later that Smith had been advised “in general terms” that if she went ahead with her plans “without seeking advice from DWP it may have an impact on her ESA claim”, and that paying for her funeral “could be considered deprivation of capital”.

She said that Smith was “given general advice and then provided with specific guidance on her individual circumstances”.

But when asked to clarify whether Smith was or was not originally told definitively that she could not use the money to pay for her funeral, and that to do so might be considered an offence, she declined to comment further.

http://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/dwp-threatened-to-dock-terminally-ill-womans-benefits-if-she-paid-for-her-own-funeral/

Sometimes words cannot convey the utter disgust you feel.

That's awful. Absolutely shit.

I remember when my dad was diagnosed with Cancer in 2002. He applied for some kind of sick benefit and sent proof etc
He never received anything at all despite paying taxes all his life.

When they finally rang my mum and started querying stuff my mum informed them it was too late and that he'd died.

I was so furious.

Words fail me over what the DWP are doing, and they fully intend to do worse if the Tories get in. It frightens the hell out of a lot of people. None of us know when we are going to get sick.

Health is the most important thing in our lives, and when people get terminally ill or chronically sick, the last thing they need to worry about is money and financial survival.

It's something that definitely needs addressing.

I thought you were allowed to have £16,000 in savings before it affected your DWP money?

nicko wrote:I thought you were allowed to have £16,000 in savings before it affected your DWP money?

I don't know the exact amount, but I presume that this insurance windfall took her over the allowed limit. This is not a unique situation. In other benefit situations, or divorce or inheritance tax situations, if you are deemed to spend capital in order to claim benefits or avoid tax or maintenance payments, it will be investigated.

I'm all right then, i'v only got £15.999.

nicko wrote:I'm all right then,   i'v  only got   £15.999.

Well don't go putting another pound in!

They take into account a partner's income and capital as well.

Bloody hell, the wife's got £1 in her account!

nicko wrote:Bloody hell, the wife's got £1 in her account!

Oh dear!

I'v just taken her to the Bank, made her withdraw £1, bought her an ice-cream on the way home, [it cost a pound]

nicko wrote:I'v just taken her to the Bank,  made her withdraw £1,    bought her an ice-cream on the  way home,   [it cost a pound]

You mean she paid for her own ice cream.

Of course, it was her money!

nicko wrote:Of course,  it was her money!

That could be seen as deprivation of capital you know.

eddie wrote:Health is the most important thing in our lives, and when people get terminally ill or chronically sick, the last thing they need to worry about is money and financial survival.

It's something that definitely needs addressing.

We are dealing with a modern day specific breed of monsters here, who have no concept of humanity or could ever begin to understand such a thing as dignity, unless of course if it is their own.

captainJane wrote:

eddie wrote:Health is the most important thing in our lives, and when people get terminally ill or chronically sick, the last thing they need to worry about is money and financial survival.

It's something that definitely needs addressing.

We are dealing with a modern day specific breed of monsters here, who have no concept of humanity or could ever begin to understand such a thing as dignity, unless of course if it is their own.  

They're following the rules about means testing. The rules are there for a reason - to prevent people who have enough money of their own from taking money from those who don't.

Actually, if you read the OP again:

Smith, from south Devon, had contacted DWP after being told about the £3,700 refund, because she wanted to be sure that she did not fall foul of any regulations if she spent the money on paying in advance for her funeral.

That was the money she got. Who wouldn't want the peace of mind of knowing your funeral is paid for if you are terminally ill?

Captain Jane, couldn't agree with you more.

risingsun wrote:Actually, if you read the OP again:

Smith, from south Devon, had contacted DWP after being told about the £3,700 refund, because she wanted to be sure that she did not fall foul of any regulations if she spent the money on paying in advance for her funeral.

That was the money she got.   Who wouldn't want the peace of mind of knowing your funeral is paid for if you are terminally ill?  

Captain Jane, couldn't agree with you more.

It seems she was technically falling foul of the regulations, but they have made an exception for her. Perhaps they will change the rules so that things like funeral expenses don't count as deprivation as capital.

Actually she wasn't, as Nicko has said, you are allowed savings of £16,000.  They have not changed their minds because they were wrong in the first place but because they have been found out and it has been publicised.   Trouble is, in all these cases, they deliberately give people the wrong information and sanction them for things they should not, because that is what they have been told to do.   People who have worked for the DWP have come forward to say so, and I have printed on here before a letter from a DWP manager giving praise to people who have done just that.

risingsun wrote:Actually she wasn't, as Nicko has said, you are allowed savings of £16,000.  They have not changed their minds because they were wrong in the first place but because they have been found out and it has been publicised.   Trouble is, in all these cases, they deliberately give people the wrong information and sanction them for things they should not, because that is what they have been told to do.   People who have worked for the DWP have come forward to say so, and I have printed on here before a letter from a DWP manager giving praise to people who have done just that.

Where does it say how much she had in savings? Perhaps she already had £16,000 and the extra money put her over the limit. The trouble is that these articles are written by people who are already biased and are possibly not giving all the information.

They do this to people every day who have no savingis, so why you would jump to the conclusion that she had some I don't know. If she had some she would have already paid for her funeral as it was so important to her, it was only having the windfall that allowed her to do it.

risingsun wrote:They do this to people every day who have no savingis, so why you would jump to the conclusion that she had some I don't know.   If she had some she would have already paid for her funeral as it was so important to her, it was only having the windfall that allowed her to do it.

Why would they cut her benefits if she was under the allowed capital limit? That would make no sense.

Nothing makes sense about what the DWP are doing at the moment in hundreds of cases, except they have been told to make as many sanctions as they can even if they know they are wrong.   A letter I posted the other week gave specific instruction to DWP staff that if people were meeting the requirement to get their unemployment benefit, make up more rigorous requirement even if they are not lawful.

risingsun wrote:Nothing makes sense about what the DWP are doing at the moment in hundreds of cases, except they have been told to make as many sanctions as they can even if they know they are wrong.   A letter I posted the other week gave specific instruction to DWP staff that if people were meeting the requirement to get their unemployment benefit, make up more rigorous requirement even if they are not lawful.

Well if she was under the allowed limit, why would she have asked them about using the money? It wouldn't be their business.

Because she knew, as many people know, when you are dealing with the DWP you have to cover absolutely everything and tell them everything so they can't use it against you, especially is you are getting ESA, as that is the benefit that they are stopping the most, even when they are proved wrong 99% of the time.


My friend was dying of cancer and they did the same thing to her, because her sister gave her money so that she could plan her funeral before she died. They also wanted her to go to the office when she couldn't get out of bed and her specialist went nuts.

risingsun wrote:Because she knew, as many people know, when you are dealing with the DWP you have to cover absolutely everything and tell them everything so they can't use it against you, especially is you are getting ESA, as that is the benefit that they are stopping the most, even when they are proved wrong 99% of the time.


My friend was dying of cancer and they did the same thing to her, because her sister gave her money so that she could plan her funeral before she died.   They also wanted her to go to the office when she couldn't get out of bed and her specialist went nuts.

There isn't enough information to go on in the article really.

I find all this planning of funerals a bit weird tbh.

You do? You wouldn't if you were terminally ill, you would want to make sure that when you died your relatives didn't have to fork out for you and didn't have to do all the horrible things you have to do to plan a funeral.

risingsun wrote:You do?   You wouldn't if you were terminally ill, you would want to make sure that when you died your relatives didn't have to fork out for you and didn't have to do all the horrible things you have to do to plan a funeral.

Yes I do. I don't like those adverts by June Whitfield inviting people to plan for their funeral expenses.

The relatives would still have to plan the funeral anyway, and the expenses would come out of the estate. Some people find that helps. I don't like it myself. I find £3,700 for a funeral to be a bit excessive tbh. Still, each to their own.

Raggamuffin wrote:

risingsun wrote:You do?   You wouldn't if you were terminally ill, you would want to make sure that when you died your relatives didn't have to fork out for you and didn't have to do all the horrible things you have to do to plan a funeral.

Yes I do. I don't like those adverts by June Whitfield inviting people to plan for their funeral expenses.

The relatives would still have to plan the funeral anyway, and the expenses would come out of the estate. Some people find that helps. I don't like it myself. I find £3,700 for a funeral to be a bit excessive tbh. Still, each to their own.

Wrong on both counts I'm afraid. If the the funeral is already bought and paid for and the plans given to the funeral directors, nobody has to do anything about it. The Estate is completely different. My Dad has his completely paid for an planned and everything written out, it makes him feel in charge even of his own death.

And £3,700 is very average for a funeral now.

The rising cost of dying: Average funeral now costs £7,600 and thousands are struggling to afford a fitting send off

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2543006/The-rising-cost-dying-Average-funeral-costs-7-600-thousands-struggling-afford-fitting-send-off.html#ixzz3Vhmy4kda
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

risingsun wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Yes I do. I don't like those adverts by June Whitfield inviting people to plan for their funeral expenses.

The relatives would still have to plan the funeral anyway, and the expenses would come out of the estate. Some people find that helps. I don't like it myself. I find £3,700 for a funeral to be a bit excessive tbh. Still, each to their own.

Wrong on both counts I'm afraid.   If the the funeral is already bought and paid for and the plans given to the funeral directors, nobody has to do anything about it.   The Estate is completely different.   My Dad has his completely paid for an planned and everything written out, it makes him feel in charge even of his own death.

And £3,700 is very average for a funeral now.

I'm not wrong. They'd still have to book the crem or church or whatever, unless she could predict which day she would die. They would still have to tell people about it and all that. Funeral expenses come out of a person's estate - if they have enough money of course.

It still seems a lot to me - people go a bit OTT IMO.

Funeral expenses do not come out of estate if they have already been paid for, and if the church has been given the details in advance, all the funeral directors have to do is contact them to arrange a date, unless you have planned a funeral recently, you have not idea of what you have to do to arrange.   I've done it twice in the last four years.   My daughter had just about as basic as it is possible and it still came to £3,800.   My Mum's was over £5,000.

risingsun wrote:Funeral expenses do not come out of estate if they have already been paid for, and if the church has been given the details in advance, all the funeral directors have to do is contact them to arrange a date, unless you have planned a funeral recently, you have not idea of what you have to do to arrange.   I've done it twice in the last four years.   My daughter had just about as basic as it is possible and it still came to £3,800.   My Mum's was over £5,000.

You said this in order to explain why she paid for it in advance:

you would want to make sure that when you died your relatives didn't have to fork out for you

My point was that they wouldn't need to as the expenses would come out of the estate anyway.

Anyway, I just don't like the idea of all that pre-planning - it's just my opinion - nothing to do with the story really.

Yes they would, because funeral directors now demand the money up front, it takes a long time to wind up someones estate.

last year stepdads was £3700 and that was very basic with me paying for order of service cards and the sister and 1 stepbrother paying for tea afterwards. coffin was basic.

he had only £800 left in his estate apart from the house which they cant include. that did have to go towards the expenses. the rest came from an insurance policy that luckily processed very early.

sassy he died in February and by July probate was granted - would've been quicker if I had lived over there and my stepbrother not started a new job as I could have done more. it all depends on the size of the estate, next of kin, etc....ive known some go on for a couple of years. it also depends on the caseload in the courts.

rags I feel a bit like you but most of my family have planned it all out and it has made it easier at the time.

I'v sorted mine, bonfire backgarden, ashes to go into lake where I fished. total cost £1.50 for fire lighters.Son said will drive ashes to lake and tip in.Cost of petrol about £2, total £3.50, Sorted.

Everyone gets £2,000 to bury tneir partner don't they?

eddie wrote:Everyone gets £2,000 to bury tneir partner don't they?

I don't think its a set amount is it?
Also the claimer needs to be in receipt of certain benefits and if there is a funeral plan the grant will need to be repaid.

eddie wrote:
Everyone gets £2,000 to bury tneir partner don't they?

OVER HERE, those on welfare (and very low incomes) get a burial benefit just under half of that amount, roughly speaking...

PROBABLY covers around 1/4 -> 1/3rd of the cost of a "basic" funeral down here, (plus often the cost of a 'new' burial/interment site if one isn't already available - something many families don't have to worry about..). MORE if they don't have a service, and go for a cremation over a grave-digging..

Nems wrote:

eddie wrote:Everyone gets £2,000 to bury tneir partner don't they?

I don't think its a set amount is it?
Also the claimer needs to be in receipt of certain benefits and if there is a funeral plan the grant will need to be repaid.

No nems my mum received some money for my dad and they were not getting any benefits and never had?

I'll,check with my mum though and if I remember, I'll post it here

eddie wrote:

Nems wrote:

I don't think its a set amount is it?
Also the claimer needs to be in receipt of certain benefits and if there is a funeral plan the grant will need to be repaid.

No nems my mum received some money for my dad and they were not getting any benefits and never had?

I'll,check with my mum though and if I remember, I'll post it here

eds I think we had this discussion last year???

mum would have gotten it but she would have had to pay it back after she received the small life insursnce policy which paid off the funeral director as i stated above. mum and stepdad were on DLA, carers allowance, state pension and 1 very small.pension that was about £1000 a year.

it changed recently too so it depends on when your dad died.

https://www.gov.uk/funeral-payments/what-youll-get

Cass wrote:

eddie wrote:

Nems wrote:

I don't think its a set amount is it?
Also the claimer needs to be in receipt of certain benefits and if there is a funeral plan the grant will need to be repaid.

No nems my mum received some money for my dad and they were not getting any benefits and never had?

I'll,check with my mum though and if I remember,  I'll post it here

eds I think we had this discussion last year???

mum would have gotten it but she would have had to pay it back after she received the small life insursnce policy which paid off the funeral director as i stated above. mum and stepdad were on DLA, carers allowance, state pension and 1 very small.pension that was about £1000 a year.

it changed recently too so it depends on when your dad died.

https://www.gov.uk/funeral-payments/what-youll-get

Sorry Cass my memory isn't what it was - which is why I said I'd check - my dad died in early 2003
My friends dad though, died only three years ago and her mum got it?

I can maybe find out more if our homocide worker is in tomorrow. I do know that sometimes it needs to be repaid. Also the funeral directors are usually accommodating, but maybe that is because its murder cased we deal with. It is a very expensive business though.

^nems ours allowed a grace period then they offer a payment plan but like I said we got the policy money through quickly.

^eds no worries I a lot has happened since then! it could even have changed between your friend and mine.

that link is the exact one I used last year when we were thinking about it and we called the helpdesk a few different times and always got the same answer. also Norfolk CC offers a one stop thing when a person dies (very handy - they take care of informing everyone officially and you can concentrate on the important stuff) and their person told us same thing.

I THINK it all comes down to his much money they have available to include life insurance. if your dad had nothing in his estate (doesn't matter if your mum had her own) then yes she would ha
gd gotten itand not gad to pay it back going by today's requirements but I don't know if they were different in 2003.

Well they had some savings definitely Cass
Not sure - I will check with my mum. Forgot to ask her tonight as she'd been to a dog show x