Terms & Conditions

[rd80]

Claimant took advantage of right to buy, land registry search confirmed that claimant was the owner. The claimant however had an agreement with a ‘friend’ Mr S who was a work collegue’ who provided the funds to pay for the property. An agreement was made with a solicitor that after 3 years it would be transferred to Mr S but claimant could live in the property rent free but claimant was to pay for the Ctax.

In January 2006 the 3 years expired, property ownership was transferred, she put in for another Council property and was re-housed in May into a bungalow.

We have refused her HB & CTB due to the fact that she gave the property away. Thus depriving herself of a home valued at approx £120,000.00.

Any thoughts, what would you do

[peterdelamothe]

Its galling but you have to demonstrate she deprived herself for the purposes of increasing / obtaining Housing Benefit – when I suspect her objective was quite the opposite (she was not liable for rent for three years). The fact that you suspect that the “deal” was not quite as it seems is not the same as facing hard evidence.

I could ask why she obtained a second property but I wont because I asked that same question for many years in similar cases.

Sorry but your case is thin.

[Kevin D]

[this post was being compiled as Peter D posted]

Based on the info given so far, it would *appear* that the first and most fundamental question has been overlooked. The question being:

In “giving away” the property, was there [u:9ee7f2750b]a[/u:9ee7f2750b] [b:9ee7f2750b]significant operative purpose[/b:9ee7f2750b] [u:9ee7f2750b]in order to obtain, or increase, HB/CTB?[/u:9ee7f2750b]

If the answer is “no”, then there is no deprivation.

Note that there can be more than one purpose and that there is no need to establish a [u:9ee7f2750b]dominant[/u:9ee7f2750b] purpose – but there must be a significant operative purpose in relation to HB/CTB.

Regards

[andyrichards]

To be honest I am not clear that any obvious link whatsoever could be said to exist between her actions regarding this transaction and any claim for benefit, and I am also not clear what actual capital she deprived herself of. The property was her normal home and hence its capital value was disregarded for CTB purposes for all the time she lived in it.

Leaving that aside, it seems clear from the agreement she entered into that she never was the benficial owner and never had any claim on any of this money you say she’s deprived herself of. She bought the property with someone else’s money and she only had the right to use the property but not dispose of it.

Leaving even that aside, an arrangement which would only see her getting some HB after a wait of 3 years does not look like a significant operative purpose to me.

Sorry, but I don’t see how this can possibly be deprivation if she never had a chance of getting her hands on the money in the first place.

[Author]

Posts