You’re right, it was speculation and is irrelevant other than to suggest a reason for the trust being set up was for some other reason other than to obtain HB. As such, no evidence of deprivation.
My concern is that the property has been put into a trust where the original owner is the trustee with control, and is also the principal beneficiary, so seems to have effectively remained in the position of owner (beneficial rather than legal) but without any penalty to any benefits. The other trustee doesn’t really have any say, and I don’t think is actually blocking the sale. The claimant didn’t seem to know what he had signed or that he couldn’t just sell the property. All info seems to be coming from relatives, which is understandable given what he’s just gone through.
My question is: given that he has the means to fund his rent, or even sell to buy more suitable accommodation, but is choosing not to pursue any payment from the trust, do we have to just disregard the capital indefinitely or should we be questioning it? I don’t have any problem with the property being placed in trust, it just seems an unusual set up.
