
Universal Credit households warned claims at RISK over ‘mis-sold' savings accounts
When you apply for the key benefit, the Government will take into account how much you have in savings.
1
One of the factors taken into account is whether you have savings in a Lifetime ISA (LISA).
A committee of MPs has just completed a review into Lifetime ISAs - and concluded the accounts may have been improperly sold to people who could be eligible for Universal Credit.
The Lifetime ISA lets you save up to £4,000 a year either towards a first home or for retirement.
The Government adds a 25% bonus of up to £1,000 a year on top of everything you save annually.
Under the current system, any savings held in a LISA can affect your eligibility for Universal Credit or Housing Benefit.
That's despite this not being the case for other personal or workplace pension schemes.
The report said: "If the Government is unwilling to equalise the treatment of the Lifetime ISA with other Government -subsidised retirement savings products in universal credit assessments, Lifetime ISA products must include warnings that the Lifetime ISA is an inferior product for anyone who might one day be in receipt of Universal Credit.
"Such warnings would guard against savers being sold products that are not in their best financial interests, which might well constitute mis-selling."
The committee said the inclusion of the Lifetime ISA in the eligibility assessment for these benefits is "inconsistent" with other retirement products and "nonsensical".
It comes as Chancellor Rachel Reeves is expected to reform ISA savings.
Disability benefit explained - what you can claim
ISAs are accounts that let you save away up to £20,000 every tax year without paying any tax on your interest or earnings.
However the Government is hoping to push more savers towards investments rather than cash savings.
What is a Lifetime ISA?
FIRST-time buyers saving into a LISA can stash up to £4,000 into this account each year tax-free.
The government will add a 25% bonus to your savings, up to a maximum of £1,000 per year.
For example, if you save £4,000, you'll get a £1,000 bonus.
The amount you pay in is linked to your annual ISA allowance (£20,000 for 2023/24) – for example, if you pay £1,000 into your LISA, you can still pay £19,000 into other ISA products.
Any bonus you earn doesn't count towards your ISA allowance.
You can open a Lifetime ISA with any bank, building society or investment manager that offers the product.
You can only open a LISA if you're aged 18–39.
You can hold multiple Lifetime ISAs, although you can only pay into one each tax year.
You can also transfer your Lifetime ISA to another provider, for example, to get a better interest rate.
If you want to use a Lifetime ISA to buy a home, there are a few restrictions you need to keep in mind:
Only first-time buyers can use Lifetime ISAs to buy a home, which means you can't own, or have owned, a home in the UK or anywhere in the world.
You'll need to be buying a home for no more than £450,000.
You must be buying a home you plan to live in – the scheme isn't for buying a home you want to rent out, or a holiday home.
If you don't use it to buy your first home, you can continue paying into a LISA until you're 50.
You can then make full or partial withdrawal from your LISA, without paying a fee, when you turn 60.
Savers might be making 'poorer decisions'
The review also found that Lifetime ISAs could be contributing to people making poorer financial decisions.
Many use the accounts to boost their deposit savings for their first home.
But experts have argued that restrictions placed on LISA customers have led to thousands missing out.
You can only use a LISA to purchase a home worth up to £450,000, which in many parts of the country is feasible but in the South East and London this is increasingly pricing people out.
The £450,000 limit has not changed since the LISA was first introduced in 2017.
On top of this, people withdrawing money from a LISA for any reason other than retirement or buying a first home face a 25% withdrawal charge.
At face value this looks like just losing the bonus offered by the Government, but in reality you end up losing 6.25% of your own savings too.
In the 2023-24 financial year, 99,650 people were charged the penalty.
That's nearly double the number of people who used their LISA to buy a home (56,900).
The Treasury Committee, which released the report, said this was a possible indication the LISA is not working as intended.
The report said: "Many people have lost a portion of their savings due to a lack of understanding of the withdrawal charge or because of unforeseen changes in their circumstances, such as buying a first home at a price greater than the cap.
"However, the case for reducing the charge must be balanced against the impact on Government spending.
"The Lifetime ISA must include a deterrent to discourage savers from withdrawing funds from long-term saving."
The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts spending on bonuses paid to account holders will cost the Treasury around £3billion over the five years to 2029-30.
Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier said: "The committee is firmly behind the objectives of the Lifetime ISA, which are to help those who need it onto the property ladder and to help people save for retirement from an early age.
"The question is whether the Lifetime Isa is the best way to spend billions of pounds over several years to achieve those goals.
"We know that the Government is looking at ISA reform imminently, which means this is the perfect time to assess if this is the best way to help the people who need it."
Brian Byrnes, head of personal finance at Lifetime ISA provider Moneybox, said the accounts have "proven particularly valuable for first-time buyers on lower to middle incomes, with 80% of Moneybox Lisa savers earning £40,000 or less".
"We firmly believe that by future-proofing the house price cap and amending the withdrawal penalty, the LISA would continue to serve as a highly effective product, helping young people build and embed positive saving behaviours early in life, get more people onto the property ladder, and prepare for a more secure retirement," he said.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Why govt's promise of 'biggest boost to affordable housing in a generation' may be overblown
Angela Rayner is set to announce plans to build 180,000 new social homes in the next decade, as the government seeks to "turn the tide on the housing crisis". It would be six times greater than the number of social homes built in the 10 years up to 2024 - and forms part of a drive to build 300,000 new social and affordable properties by 2035. The plan is backed by a £39bn investment announced by Chancellor Rachel Reeves in last month's spending review. 2:29 The deputy prime minister called on the social housing sector to "work together to turn the tide of the housing crisis", and said the investment was "the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation". "We are seizing this golden opportunity with both hands to transform this country by building the social and affordable homes we need, so we create a brighter future where families aren't trapped in temporary accommodation and young people are no longer locked out of a secure home," she said. Ms Rayner's target for social and affordable housing is part of a wider long-term plan - also due to be published on Wednesday - setting out how the government will build both more houses and improve housing standards. Here, Sky News looks at what the plan will mean for the country, how it compares to previous programmes, and how it could be affected by the increased cost of construction. 3:17 Crunching the numbers The £39bn 10-year Affordable Homes Programme is an ambitious investment in affordable housing, representing a real terms increase from the previous programme of over £1bn annually. However, claims of the "biggest boost in a generation" may be slightly overblown. When factoring in inflation, the annual investment of £3.9bn falls short of the equivalent £4.5bn annually from 2008 to 2011 under the previous Labour government. This was however a notably short-term uplift, and the sector will welcome the stability of the new settlement which secures funding for 10 years - compared with five years or fewer under previous programmes. The programme sets out to deliver 30,000 affordable homes per year on average, with at least 18,000 of those being for social rent, rather than other tenures such as shared ownership. This would be more than twice the number under the previous programme, which is estimated to have delivered about 8,000 homes annually for social rent by its completion. Similarly, however, it is fewer than were delivered by the previous Labour Affordable Homes Programme, which was over 30,000 a year from 2008 to 2011. A further challenge to the government's goal of a "generational" uplift is the increasing cost of building, meaning they may face diminishing returns on their investment. The previous Affordable Homes Programme initially aimed to deliver 180,000 homes, which was revised down significantly to between 110,000 and 130,000 due to increasing costs and delays. This government can expect to face a similar economic landscape, particularly with an ambition to deliver a greater share of socially rented homes - the most expensive type of affordable housing to build.

Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Overseas students using higher education as ‘backdoor' to stay in UK
A paper from centre-right think tank Policy Exchange has called for the graduate visa route to be scrapped for all students other than those on postgraduate research degrees. The current model is 'not working' as individuals are using the student visa as a route to longer-term migration, the report has suggested. In May, the Labour Government announced plans to reduce the graduate visa route, which allows overseas students to live and work in the UK for up to two years after their studies, to 18 months. Under changes introduced by the former Conservative government in January 2024, international students in the UK have been banned from bringing dependants with them since – apart from some postgraduate research courses or courses with government-funded scholarships. But the report said the changes do not go 'far enough' and it called for bolder action to ensure study at UK universities is not 'a migration backdoor'. The paper said: 'Most fundamentally, the purpose of student migration should be to study, not to provide a backdoor route to longer term migration or settlement. 'Yet increasingly studying in the UK has become a pathway for widespread and sustained immigration.' The number of international students in the UK increased by 66% between 2014/15 and 2023/24, the report suggested. Two in five (40%) of those who arrived on student visas transferred to a different visa type within one year in 2023 – up from just 3% in 2019, according to the paper. Zachary Marsh, research fellow in education at Policy Exchange and author of the report, said: 'UK universities must return to the business of selling education, not immigration. 'Whilst international students can provide valuable economic benefits, the current system drives migration by those who have no interest in study but instead see the student and graduate visa as an open door to working in the UK. 'The Government and universities must go further to clamp down on those gaming the system. 'A more muscular approach is needed to restore public confidence that international students are good for our universities and wider economy and society.' The report has also suggested that overseas students 'may be crowding out UK students' at some universities. Shadow education minister Neil O'Brien is due to address a Policy Exchange event in London on Wednesday on higher education and migration to coincide with the launch of the think tank's report. Mr O'Brien is expected to say: 'It's not just taxpayers who are losing out. 'The current system isn't working for too many students, who are promised great things but find themselves having to pay back huge sums on very low wages. 'Too many students are being ripped off and we have to ask whether there are better uses of taxpayers' money that will leave young people better off.' Tim Bradshaw, chief executive of the Russell Group, a group of 24 research-intensive universities, said: 'In an increasingly competitive global market, the UK needs to maintain an attractive offer for international students. 'This includes the graduate visa route, which allows international graduates to remain in the UK to work and contribute to the economy for a period after their studies. 'We know that international student recruitment, like any immigration policy, needs to be robust and fair to maintain people's trust in the system. 'Our universities are committed to working with Government to eliminate any abuse of the system and ensure places go to those who are here to study and meet the standards needed to succeed on their course.' A Government spokesperson said: 'A series of measures have already been laid out in the Immigration White Paper to restore control over the system, including reducing the graduate visa from two years to 18 months. 'We will also ensure international graduates move into graduate level roles. This is what the Graduate route was created to facilitate access to, and will also help meet the UK's workforce needs, as part of our Plan for Change. 'We will also crack down further on abuse of our immigration system by strengthening requirements for universities, requiring tighter enforcement on visa approvals, course enrolments and student completions whilst continuing to welcome international students that support our world-leading universities.'

Rhyl Journal
2 hours ago
- Rhyl Journal
Parental leave probe could tackle gender pay gap, says minister
Justin Madders criticised a 'piecemeal approach' to designing the parental leave system over the past 134 years. Unveiling the plan, Mr Madders set out four objectives for the probe. Among these was 'support for economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work and advance their careers', which could help the Government better tackle the gender pay gap. Currently, new fathers can take two weeks' paid leave, at a rate of either £187.18, or 90% of average weekly earnings, whichever is lowest. Maternity leave is paid at 90% of average weekly earnings for the first six weeks, and then whichever is lower of that 90% or £187.18 for the next 33 weeks. Ministers hope to increase the take-up of shared parental leave, which allows a couple to share up to 50 weeks of leave and 37 weeks of pay between them. They also hope to simplify the system for both parents and employers, with Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds warning that there are 'eight different types of parental leave'. Mr Madders told the Commons that 'the current system has grown up gradually over time'. He referred to the Factory and Workshop Act 1891, which banned women from working in factories for four weeks after they had given birth. 'Subsequent entitlements have been added to support specific groups as needs have emerged,' Mr Madders added. 'This has created a framework that does not always work cohesively as a whole. This piecemeal approach to parental leave and pay means that the system has never had an overarching set of objectives for what it should deliver. 'This review presents an opportunity to reset our approach and understanding of parental leave and pay, and what we want the system to achieve.' The minister later said: 'Our first objective is to support the physical and mental health of women during pregnancy and after giving birth to a child. 'Our second objective is to support economic growth by enabling more parents to stay in work and advance in their careers after starting a family. This will particularly focus on improving both women's labour market outcomes and tackling the gender pay gap. 'Our third objective is to ensure that there are sufficient resources and time away from work to support new and expectant parents' wellbeing. This will also include facilitating the best start in life for babies and young children, supporting health and development outcomes. 'Our fourth objective is to support parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their family situation, including enabling co-parenting and providing flexibility to reflect the realities of modern work and childcare needs.' The review, carried out by the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Work and Pensions, will consider how to 'balance costs and benefits to businesses and the Exchequer, as well as examining how a system can support economic opportunities for businesses and families', Mr Madders said. The review will also look at 'improving our society, for example, in supporting the child poverty strategy and on shifting social and gender norms, including around paternal childcare'. Mr Reynolds has previously told the PA news agency: 'We want this to work for millions of families who tell us at the minute that it is not working, so only about one in three new dads take paternity leave, mainly for financial reasons.' He insisted businesses would be 'absolutely integral' to the review, and would not face extra burdens as a result. He added: 'They tell us the current system is quite confusing, that people don't know what they're entitled to, that businesses don't know what they should be offering.' Shadow business minister Greg Smith described a 'toxic treatment of enterprise' by the Government and argued the British economy will be 'stripped of all signs of life' by the time the review concludes. 'I would like to take this opportunity to make it crystal clear that Conservatives are not opposed to increased parental leave, so long as it is proportionate, affordable and does not increase unemployment,' he said. 'But therein lies the problem, because this Government has left themselves no breathing room. Their political choices have imposed the most significant headwinds on business in a generation.' Mr Smith told MPs: 'It's all well and good that the minister announces this review in the House today, but, let us be in no doubt, when it concludes in a year and a half's time, Britain's economy will have been stripped of all signs of life because of the choices Labour have made.' Responding, Mr Madders said the review was launched on Tuesday to meet Labour's manifesto commitment to assess parental leave within a year of taking office.