Suzanne
‘Of limited means’ is a deliberately flexible phrase. At its core, it simply means someone does not have much money or financial resources—but it’s not a precise legal or financial threshold unless a specific policy defines it.
In plain terms, it usually implies a person:
* Has low income and/or minimal savings,
* Can meet basic needs, but only just, and
* Has little financial resilience (e.g. unexpected costs would be difficult).
Why is it vague?
The phrase is often used in:
* Charity governing documents.
* Grant criteria.
* Almshouse eligibility.
… but without a fixed definition, because trustees or decision-makers are expected to apply judgement based on circumstances.
In an almshouse context (important for you), ‘of limited means’ typically involves looking at:
* Income (pensions, benefits, earnings),
* Savings and capital,
* Outgoings (especially rent, care, health costs), and
* Overall ability to live independently without hardship.
It’s relative, not absolute:
Someone might not qualify for state benefits, yet still be ‘of limited means’. Equally, someone with modest income but substantial savings might not qualify.
The key point (and where trustees often go wrong) – don’t treat it as a fixed income cutoff. If you do, you risk being too rigid (excluding genuinely needy people). Or inconsistent (if decisions aren’t documented).
As you have already implied, someone ‘of limited means’ in Surrey might actually be pretty well off in County Durham!
A good approach is to:
* Define your charity’s interpretation (even informally).
* Apply it consistently.
* Record the reasoning behind your decisions.
Nick Stiven
clerk@stjohnswilton.org.uk