‘Anytime’ Revision

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #39134
    wintlejb
    Participant

    I have a case where the customer claimed CTB and fails to inform us that he had an interest in another property.

    Following a fraud investigation we decided that his interest in the other property was valued at over £16k and an overpayment created. The customer admitted that he owned the other property 50/50 with his ex-partner who had the same interest in his property. This decision was made in November 2008 and he subsequently accepted an Ad Pen.

    He then re-applied for CTB in April 2010 declaring a 50/50 interest in his ex-partners property. CTB was refused on the basis of excess capital.

    The claimant appealed stating that his interest in the other property was only 5% and he had made a mistake in previous correspondence/forms.

    The Tribunal accepted his explanation! and decided that his capital valuation should be based on the 5% share from April 2010 meaning he became entitled to CTB.

    The claimant has now requested that we revise the previous decision and quash the Ad pen on the basis that he has never owned 50% of the other property.

    Should we revise the first decision on the basis of an anytime revision as it was made due to a ‘mistake of fact’ and what then happens to the Ad Pen?

    #110987
    Andy Thurman
    Keymaster

    [quote=wintlejb]The Tribunal accepted his explanation! and decided that his capital valuation should be based on the 5% share from April 2010 meaning he became entitled to CTB.[/quote]

    Have you got a full statement of reasons? Is there anything that ‘confirms’ the 5% share? Just wondering on what basis the tribunal accepted this?

    #110989
    wintlejb
    Participant

    The only ‘confirmation’ was a letter from the ex-partner confirming the arrangement.

    The land registry documents would suggest an equal split but I don’t know if they would give a percentage in any case.

    #110999
    Kevin D
    Participant

    On the specific issue of whether the caution should stand, the case of R (on the application of Wyman) v Chief Constable of Hampshire [2006] 1904 (Admin) may be of interest.

    In Wyman, it was found that in order for a caution to be valid, there must be a “clear and reliable” admission. The judgment also makes it clear that cautions are not to be treated lightly.

    Wyman: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2006/1904.html

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.