Is this feasible?

So historic accounts before the age of joined up computers get picked up too.

NonGrannyMoll

Beware - the laws around fraud are very strict and it's doubtful whether anyone would get away with this one - not least because the bodies which control pensions and other entitlements are not stupid (if you asked anyone in the relevant government department, they'd laugh you out of the room -- "Oh, THAT old chestnut!").

It’s all the more likely that a hidden private pension pot would come to light after death following Labour’s decision to bring such assets within the scope of IHT, with which I don’t disagree. The executors may then face a substantial bill for fraudulently claimed pension credit and any other means-tested benefits.

My understanding is that if someone is already receiving PIP before reaching SP age they continue to receive it. It is not means tested. people over SP age cannot apply for a new PIP award. Pension credit is means tested and not available if there are savings over a certain amount. Surely a pension pot should count as savings?

I agree it’s very difficult to evade disclosure now, it’s very difficult to hide assets now and would come to light in probate. Until then I’m pretty sure there are quite a lot of hidden assets aquired years ago

I have filled in a couple of forms for people who are entitled to pension credit.
I could be wrong but I seem to recall there were questions about assets and investments etc.

David49

So historic accounts before the age of joined up computers get picked up too.

Active accounts started before computerisation will be online.

Not to be online an historic account would have to have been opened over 30 or 40 years ago and not been accessed for 30 years or more. Whomesoever it belongs too must undoubtedly have forgotten about it by now and the institute it was invested it with will long ago have written ot off as a dormant account.

I don’t think that would be allowed, would you not have to declare it?

The DWP will ask about the pension if you don't declare it. They have this information.

Yes, but by the time the investigation is complete, there will be a considerable amount of overpayment to be repaid and potentially action against the person making a fraudulent claim. Even prison.

Just to reassure GNetters........My original post was certainly NOT about me or my partner. Nor was it a dig at anyone in genuine receipt of pension credit, PIP, WFP or any other benefit for that matter.

I had already formed the opinion that it was probably fraudulent and most certainly morally wrong anyway and I am well aware that financial institutions, businesses and employers submit an annual return to HMRC.

The part I was not sure about was with regard to the private pension not being drawn on.........personally, I couldn't wait to give back my uniform, and get my lump sum and pension. Doing that sort of 'went with the territory' where I worked to be honest.

The whole situation defined in my OP came up in conversation with a third party and, being both curious and morally concerned, I simply wanted to investigate further.

The 'third party' involved in all this will submit their findings so if it is happening it will be investigated and action will be taken, such is the establishment that myself and third party volunteer for.

Reading all your comments has been both interesting and enlightening; you can all rest assured that there is no fraudulent activity happening chez Mr&MrsA.

Mt61

I don’t think that would be allowed, would you not have to declare it?

If you are referring to a dormant account, it would be, as I said, that the person who has it has forgotten about it. The organisation that hold the money will have made considerable effort to trace the individual and failed.

It is likely the sum of money in it, even with interest, will be minor - people rarely forget accounts with significant sums of money in them - and, as I said, organisations like banks and building societies, write these accounts off as dormant and may well no longer have any record of them. If they do, they will be in their annual return.

Astitchintime, thanks for coming back and reassuring us that the situation is being dealt with.

DH and I both have a personal pension pot which is untouched.

It is there if we need care, either residential or at home.

We are in receipt of our state pension and other incomes, nothing fraudulent or dodgy just sound forward planning.

What GG says illustrates perfectly the difference between a private pension, which is akin to a savings account, and an occupational pension which is not a pension pot and can only be used to provide an income. No reason why a private pension shouldn’t be left untouched provided its existence is declared in an application for means-tested benefits and, shortly but not at present, on death for calculation of IHT.

Cabbie21

Yes, but by the time the investigation is complete, there will be a considerable amount of overpayment to be repaid and potentially action against the person making a fraudulent claim. Even prison.

Exactly.

I've know the DWP to ask about an account the claimant could not begin to place (she was in bits with worry). The DWP were very kind - they just want the numbers.

It turned out to be a pension that had been "wound up" years ago and she had taken the amount under triviality rules. The DWP just needed to know.

However, this would suggest to me that even an undrawn on account would show up.

No, that is cheating, and immoral.

Completely agree...totally immoral. Didn't even know you could do that!

Barleyfields

What GG says illustrates perfectly the difference between a private pension, which is akin to a savings account, and an occupational pension which is not a pension pot and can only be used to provide an income. No reason why a private pension shouldn’t be left untouched provided its existence is declared in an application for means-tested benefits and, shortly but not at present, on death for calculation of IHT.

Agreed.

Wise to allow private pensions to remain untouched, a bit like an emergency fund. Not wrong, just needs to be appropriately declared.

I suppose the DWP don’t have the resources to carry out extensive background checks on every claim, though they have the power to do so and this is one area where the use of AI would be valuable. Perhaps this will change with the promised crackdown on benefit fraud. I knew of one man who successfully claimed pension credit for years on the basis of disclosing only one of his bank accounts, the one in which he had little money. The hidden account containing a very large sum came to light only after he died and the executors had to make a substantial repayment to the DWP before the estate could be distributed.

I have a local government pension (can't take it until I retire) but if I die then it dies too! My daughter will get my Death In Service benefit if I die before I retire - but that is it!

Astitchintime

Just to reassure GNetters........My original post was certainly NOT about me or my partner. Nor was it a dig at anyone in genuine receipt of pension credit, PIP, WFP or any other benefit for that matter.

I had already formed the opinion that it was probably fraudulent and most certainly morally wrong anyway and I am well aware that financial institutions, businesses and employers submit an annual return to HMRC.

The part I was not sure about was with regard to the private pension not being drawn on.........personally, I couldn't wait to give back my uniform, and get my lump sum and pension. Doing that sort of 'went with the territory' where I worked to be honest.

The whole situation defined in my OP came up in conversation with a third party and, being both curious and morally concerned, I simply wanted to investigate further.

The 'third party' involved in all this will submit their findings so if it is happening it will be investigated and action will be taken, such is the establishment that myself and third party volunteer for.

Reading all your comments has been both interesting and enlightening; you can all rest assured that there is no fraudulent activity happening chez Mr&MrsA.

Interesting situation! Obviously, you know more about the details and you and the third party will deal with it, but sometimes these situations are a mix of Chinese whispers and urban myth as in 'the family down the road, have never worked, have a new car, and go abroad on holiday three times a year' type thing.

PIP is to help with some disability or illness and is not income dependent so has nothing to do with having another potential source of income or, indeed, a large income. You can't claim PIP after reaching SP age but if you are already getting it you can keep it if your condition means you still qualify. What's the problem?

The problem would lie in the pension credit claim as unlike PIP it is means-tested.

Barleyfields

I suppose the DWP don’t have the resources to carry out extensive background checks on every claim, though they have the power to do so and this is one area where the use of AI would be valuable. Perhaps this will change with the promised crackdown on benefit fraud. I knew of one man who successfully claimed pension credit for years on the basis of disclosing only one of his bank accounts, the one in which he had little money. The hidden account containing a very large sum came to light only after he died and the executors had to make a substantial repayment to the DWP before the estate could be distributed.

So I have looked this up for those who are rubbing their hands in glee as they aim a kick at those on benefit.

All income has to be declared. All savings have to be declared. An unaccesed pension pot counts as savings and it will come up on the DWP radar.

If you claim PC and leave your pension pot alone, the DWP include ‘notional income’. This is an amount equivalent to the income you would have received if you had bought an annuity with the pension pot.

If the 'notional income' brings income above the eligability level they will not get PCG. If it is below they will.