Reply To: Seizing control of a pub


In normal circumstances yes but when I say he seized control I mean just that, FiL was physically ejected and chased away. This has, in effect, ended the partnership with FiL being entitled to all but a nominal share of the worth (on paper) and is evidenced by forfeiture of the tenancy.

So (I think) we end up with a situation where claimant was running a business he had taken possession of but did not own. If this is correct then the capital value should be calculated but cannot be disregarded. Normally if a person does not own the capital, no problem but on this occassion he is receiving the benefit from it I suspect that it should.

Income (and a whole lot of other things) is under control