Contrived CTB??

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32012
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Hi all

    Our scenario is a follows:

    2 couples, mother and father and a son and daughter-in-law live in a property.
    The property is owned by the son
    The father claims CTB which is refused as he is not the liable person. He is on Guarantee credit.

    A new claim is then received with details that the property has now been transferred in to the fathers name.

    As he is now the liable person is there any way that we can refuse his claim as contrived? And if so what regs cover this.

    I think the answer is we cant, however it feels wrong paying the benefit when the ownership was swapped purely for the purpose of getting CTB.

    #89478
    Kevin D
    Participant

    Howabout using the non-deps’ income as that of the clmt? [b:72977c8a7d]CTBR 16[/b:72977c8a7d] (or [b:72977c8a7d]CTB(PC)R 14[/b:72977c8a7d]) provides for the income and capital of a non-dep to be taken into account as that of the clmt “Where it appears to the relevant authority that a non-dependant and the claimant have entered into arrangements in order to take advantage of the council tax benefit scheme and the non-dependant has more capital and income than the claimant”.

    Personally, I have never had a case where the above provision has been appropriate, but your case may well fit like the proverbial glove.

    Note that this is not a discretionary provision. The first part (appears to the relevant authority) is a judgement call and, if that is satisfied, the application of the provision is mandatory.

    #89479
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Wow. How long before they transfer the property back to the son and the parents try to claim housing benefit? Sure is a shame about the former owner provision! πŸ˜› The lengths some people will go to in order to get benefit… πŸ™„

    #42497
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Indeed the lengths they will go to!

    Kevin, don’t think we can use CTB (PC) 14 as it states
    “Where it appears to the relevant authority that a non-dependant and the claimant have entered into arrangements in order to take advantage of the council tax benefit scheme and the non-dependant has more capital and income than the claimant, that authority shall, [b:4e02fa5823]except where the claimant is on a guarantee credit,[/b:4e02fa5823] treat the claimant as possessing capital and income belonging to that non-dependant and, in such a case, shall disregard any capital and income which the claimant does possess”

    Unfortunately our claimant is on guarantee credit πŸ™

    Any other suggestions?

    #89480
    Anonymous
    Guest

    [quote:0eed88e19d]Any other suggestions?[/quote:0eed88e19d]
    I think you have to pay, but personally I wouldn’t be too concerned about it. I think the long-term ramifications will far outweigh the benefit of getting Β£20 per week CTB (subject to max non-dep deduction I hope!). For example, if the son and daughter-in-law ever move out and hope to charge their parents rent they will be in no position to do so, and there will be no entitlement to HB for at least five years after the ownership is transferred back. Further, if the parents die and the son inherits the property they may have to pay inheritance tax. The son can no longer raise capital by remortgaging the property, and he may even have difficulties taking out another mortgage in the future. Even better, if the parents have to move out, the capital in the property may be taken into account when their PCGC is reviewed. If they try to give it back to the son in order to continue to receive PCGC and any other benefits, they may even be caught out by the deprivation of capital provision! So, let them have their CTB, hopefully the taxpayer will recoup that money in the future πŸ˜†

    #89481
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Just as I thought, we will have to pay them!

    Not that it matters, have just found out that the claimant is actually on Income support not PCG, as a top up to Incapacity benefit. (This is not my claim, I am just posting for someone else)
    Also the claimant was the original owner, he transferred the property to the sons ownership in July 09, LA were not advised until March 2010. Son then received some CTB based on receiving JSA(C) (His partner has no recource to public funds) for April 2010. The son then started working so CTB ended. The father tried to claim and was refused, so therefore they swapped the ownership back to the father.
    I feel there may be more swapping to come if they feel it will get them more benefits!
    There are also other sons who do not live at the property so I wouldn’t be supprised if one of them becomes owner and rent starts being charged!! πŸ™„

    #89482
    Kevin D
    Participant

    [quote:75bf6e3668=”evenr005″]Just as I thought, we will have to pay them!

    Not that it matters, have just found out that the claimant is actually on Income support not PCG..[/quote:75bf6e3668]

    Non-deps’ income for clmt’s income back in play then πŸ™‚ – at least potentially.

    #42501
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Thats what I hoped Kevin but alas no.

    The working age regs state “[b:27d48f4c96]except where the claimant is on income support, an income-based jobseekerΒ΄s allowance or an income-related employment and support allowance,”[/b:27d48f4c96] πŸ‘Ώ

    #42502
    Kevin D
    Participant

    My apologies evenr005. I have no idea how I overlooked such obvious content 😯 . My ability to concentrate is shot and I think this thread (plus a couple of other recent bloopers) shows I should probably desist from posting anything other than legal authorities in the foreseeable future.

    #42503
    laural
    Participant

    did they change the ownership with land registry?

    #42504
    Anonymous
    Guest

    Kevin, it is easy to overlook things with regards to HB/CTB, especially on a Friday!

    Laura yes they have changed the ownership with Land Registry, hence the revenues department changing the liability from mother and father, to son and daughter-in-law and then back to mother and father again!

Viewing 11 posts - 1 through 11 (of 11 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.