deprivation of capital vs income support decision

  • This topic has 6 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 16 years ago by Anonymous.
Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Author
  • #23499


    We have an appeal in where the claimant had £70,000.00 in capital which she spent over 3 months the tribunal chairperson established deprivation and substituted the local authority’s capital figure with a higher amount.

    A few months after the hearing the claimant becomes entitled to Income Support. We are currently ignoring the Income Support decision and treating the claimant as having capital which is reduced accordingly (so still does not qualify).

    Should the income support decision over ride the decision made by the tribunal?


    It would depend on what has happened to the £70,000.00 and why IS is payable. If you consider that the claimant has deprived themselves of the capital in order to obtain IS/HB/CTB then my first thought would be to confirm with DWP why IS is in payment and whether they are aware of the £70,000.00. If not then the IS decision may be revised and then case is back to square 1.

    If DWP insists that IS is lawfully in payment then you may be stuck with IS decision and therefore HB/CTB would be payable.

    If you believe that IS is unlawfully in payment then the Hamilton case will be your basis.

    Glad it’s yours and not mine!

    Do I know what I'm doing? The jury's out on that........................


    Income Support have got back to me on this case. They confirmed that they were unaware of the capital when they assessed the claim, however, there was a brief mention in the claim form that the claimant had lived off the proceeds of the sale of a previous property before claiming (this wasn’t investigated).

    They are now looking at whether Income Support should have been put into payment.

    On checking the Hamilton case this states that we can override Income support decisions where they have made their decision based on fraudulent or dishonest information.

    I don’t feel that the claimant has done this in this case I feel that it is official error.

    I am keen to progress with my appeal- however would it be advisable to wait for Income Support to make their decision or should I override the current decision even though it wasn’t fraudulent?

    irene lowe

    Had a discussion not too long ago with a person of distinction, who raised the point that with PC(G) although we are required to ignore capital however no such ruling is made in respect of notional capital. Presumably the same could be applied to Income support – apparently this it is yet to be challenged at a higher level – just food for thought- feeling in a dangerous mood today

    Chris Robbins

    The basis of the Hamilton decision is that ‘in receipt of IS’ means lawfully in receipt.
    In your case DWP have made a decision to award IS, presumably in ignorance of the fact that she disposed of £70k a few months previously. You are within your rights to ask DWP to reconsider this decision as you can reasonably say that deprivation has occurred, should be taken into account, and therefore gives nil entitlement to IS.
    I would simply justify your HB/CTB decision on this basis and take the appeal forward.


    She must have had a good time to spend £70k in 3 months.


    She must have been playing poker on the net with nameless individuals 😈

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.