Reply To: Deprivation of Capital


Ah, ignore me then craigworc – going down the wrong route for you there.

I see what you’re saying John but there’s no provision that links the relative in (a) to (b) in that paragraph? So (a) allows for the partner or relative, and (b) then doesn’t allow for the former partner where they are estranged/divorced/dissolved; but it would still stand to reason that (a) applies for the relative (daughter – who isn’t his daughter now by the sounds of it) – or is it taken that (a) no longer applies to the relative because of the status with the former partner?