Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Author
  • #31973

    Advice please.
    We cannot prove expenditure prior to a new claim has been done in order to obtain HB/CTB, but is there anyway of looking into the actual expenditure regarding reasonable spending, or is it a case of accept they spent it if you can’t prove intentional deprivance, and allow purchases irregardless of what they bought i.e. £15,000.00 for a car when a cheaper car could be bought etc.

    Can find guidance on deprivance but then not much on how to look at reduction in capital in order to assume notional capital.

    Hope this makes sense!!! 🙄

    Kevin D

    In a case where the evidence shows, in the first instance, a claimant did in fact hold capital but such capital has disappeared, the [b:aa9fecfb80]onus is on the claimant[/b:aa9fecfb80] to show s/he is no longer in possession of that capital. If the clmt is unable to provide a reasonable or credible explanation of what has happened to the capital, it is open for the LA (or Tribunal) to conclude a the capital is still held.

    I’m not sure of the distinction you are trying to draw between “deprivance” and a reduction in capital. “Notional capital” is only relevant once the LA (or Tribunal) is satisfied a claimant no longer holds the capital in quesion as a fact. At that stage, the test is whether the capital was disposed of with there being “a significant operative purpose” to obtain, or increase, benefit. Note that the purpose does not need to be the main, or sole, purpose.

    There are many many authorities on capital / notional capital – too many to start digging. As a starting point, try the CPAG’s legislation and commentary. However, “silly spending” could indeed amount to deprivation – it will depend on all of the facts.

Viewing 2 posts - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.