Terms & Conditions

[nancyowens]

Hi,

We have a claimant who has recently been released from prison after serving 8 years. He has been placed in temporary accommodation and is receiving UC.

It has come to light that he is still registered as a joint owner on his former matrimonial home. He and his ex wife divorced in 2011. The divorce settlement states that the former matrimonial home was to be transferred to the ex wife in full, but there would be a charge worth 44% of the proceeds of the sale on it which he would get when the house was sold – with the provision that a sale could not be forced until the youngest child was 19 (she is now 25 – but has not pursued this earlier due to being in prison).

However, despite the divorce settlement, the amendments were never made to the property ownership & he is still registered as joint owner on Land Reg. We are debating what to do. Should we:

a) Say that he is not a joint owner (as per the divorce settlement) and tell them to get the Land Reg updated to reflect the settlement – presumably then the capital will only come into account when the property is sold & he receives his 44% share?

b) Take it on face value that he is a joint owner and consider whether we can disregard the capital value under one of the disregard provisions (he has contacted his ex wife to ask her to get the property valued and market it, and has been advised to get some legal advice – could consider whether he is taking steps to dispose of it?).

c) Not worry about any of this as he is receiving UC as would be passported (but we do not know whether UC are aware of this property or not and if this could impact his UC award)

Advice gratefully received!!

Thanks!

[John Boxall]

The obvious place to start is (c) initially its a UC issue

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and—and in short you are for ever floored.

Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

[peterdelamothe]

If it is a freehold then he is an owner for HB purposes as he is entitled to dispose of the fee simple …reg 2. That leads you to your second query…the 6 month disregard applies from the date the property is first marketed then you have a discretion to disregard but that should not continue for years. He is entitled to his share of the property and that could be a substantial amount.

It is reasonable for you to check with UC; very unlikely they know. It is a mixed bag here. He is being denied a lot of money he is due. The council is also providing scarce temporary accommodation which they should not be doing. It is no one’s fault of course. The Court has said he should have had the money years ago. But circumstances intervened.

I think you will need to pay HB for the moment while you make enquiries but it is important that it does not drift on for years. Legal advice would be available and it might be that he can agree a no win no fee arrangement with a local social lawyer specialising in this type of issue. We have UT decisions where it suited everyone ….divorce …to allow things to drag on. Not for ever said the Judge.

[John Boxall]

But dont forget the caselaw, the starting point is Hamilton which was then expanded on by this one

CH/1900/2012

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery. The blossom is blighted, the leaf is withered, the god of day goes down upon the dreary scene, and—and in short you are for ever floored.

Wilkins Micawber, Ch12 David Copperfield

[nancyowens]

Thank you both – you have been very helpful.

[Author]

Posts