Reply To: Capital gifted – deprivation?

Mike Hughes

I absolutely accept that credibility is relevant. That ultimately comes down to detail of evidence.

If a claimant says they had no idea about capital limits but you can show that you had detailed correspondence with them at some point on a capital related issue then you’re in a much stronger position than if you’re just asserting that you send the same thing to all claimants and thus will have done so for them. Equally if they say they did declare and spoke to “someone” then that’s likely less credible than the assertion that they spoke to a female on an afternoon in the second week of November 2020 and them having, for example, a clear record of the number they rang. Detail is key to credibility rather and, whilst individual judges doubtless have different perspectives, my experience has always been that credibility comes down to detail and with detail the balance of probabilities will generally be exercised in favour of a claimant. Of course there’s the odd maverick with their “I don’t like the look of you/I think you’re a liar” schtick but those tend to get ripped apart at UT and sent back to FTT.

If you do find the decision re: the relevance of capital amounts please do post it as I’m in my fourth decade of telling claimants that the amount is not relevant. The relevant thing is “what’s the argument?”. I’ve literally had one hearing where the amount was relevant and that was where the DM decided it was worth pursuing an £86 overpayment and the judge might be politely described as giving the PO something of a hard time.

They asked for verbal leave to appeal the inevitable and were asked “Which part of ‘no’ did you not understand?” 🙂