Since that earlier thread, [b:964d7d5f8b]CH/1076/2008[/b:964d7d5f8b] has appeared. In that case, there was no court order and it was found that a person could not reassign his/her pension rights. The only outstanding issue was whether or not a trust existed – it was remitted for rehearing.
In short, unless there is a Court Order or a genuine trust in existence, the mere instruction to the pension provider to pay monies to a third party doesn’t change the fact the monies belong to the person entitled.
However there is a further issue in this case. Let’s assume the claimant has, in law, succeeded in making the pension “nil” for benefit purposes. The claimant’s redirection of the monies appears to be with a quite clearly identifiable “significant operative purpose” to obtain / increase benefit. On that basis, it’s notional income in any case.
Additional authorities that *may* be of interest, albeit in a different context, include [b:964d7d5f8b]CIS/2317/2006[/b:964d7d5f8b] and [b:964d7d5f8b]CIS/0928/2009[/b:964d7d5f8b]. In both of those cases, child benefit was payable to person “A”, but was actually paid to person “B”. The respective Cmmr and Judge found child benefit was still that of person “A”.
In summary, I’d be presenting something like this to the Tribunal:
1) The income from the pension remains that of the claimant; or alternatively,
2) The redirection of the pension was with a significant operative purpose to obtain / increase HB/CTB and, therefore, it must be taken into account as income for benefit purposes.
.
