Terms & Conditions

[Anonymous]

claimant states she is not living with husband who is in the army. When he is on leave he comes back to her address, she states just to see the chilkdren. He uses this address for all his post, they even tried to buy the council property, submitting letters etc as a couple. Does anyone have any recent caselaw that would help?

[Anonymous]

Is she saying that they are estranged?

[Anonymous]

She is trying to say they are estranged, but evidence we have got doesn’t point to that, why put in a right to buy as a couple if you are estranged?

[Anonymous]

She is trying to say they are estranged, but evidence we have got doesn’t point to that, why put in a right to buy as a couple if you are estranged?

[markp]

You could use Council Tax caselaw here as it could be relevant to persons working away from home. The obvious one is the Stark case (an RAF corporal) but also the Anderton, Codner & Cox cases would apply equally well.

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

[Anonymous]

I dont think Council Tax case law has any relevance, and you should refer to the established social security case law on living together as husband and wife.

At the end of the day, the question is not a matter of law but of fact. A decision maker or Tribunal must come to a decision on the evidence. Exercising the RTB jointly is on the face of it evidence that suggests they are still a couple, but its not conclusive because it may be the only way they can get a mortgage.

I know of no recent decisions that seriously develop the law from the days of supplementary benefit

[markp]

Stainsby and I will respectfully disagree on the point in question. I have used this in submissions where the LA’s decision was confirmed (admittedly only as part of the evidence and it was not the main thrust of the argument). In those particular cases I included CT caselaw as it supported the belief that a partner working away from home was indeed part of the household as this was the property returned to when on leave etc.

I wouldn’t use it as a matter of course and only when it has more relevance to the circumstances of an individual case.

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

[Kevin D]

Surely the existence of HBR 21 demonstrates the legislation envisages someone shall still be regarded as normally residing / occupying the “original” dwelling, even if working away for large amounts of time?

[Anonymous]

Where the person normally resides is not the issue. The issue is whether or not they are living in the same houshold as husband and wife.

I am not suggesting that the facts of this case are anything like those in CIS/072/1994, but the case before the Commissioner shows how detailed the evidence may need to be before a conclusion can be reached.

In CIS/072/1994, the couple were living under the same roof and their financial arrangements were still entwined, but the Commissioner held that they were not living together as husband and wife because the relationship had pretty much irrevocably broken down

[Author]

Posts