Which overides which ?

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Author
  • #22538
    Andy Shanks

    Ok, have person who admitted an offence and accepted a formal caution in relation to owing the [undeclared] property next door to the one he claimed at. CTB was cancelled back as capital would be in excess of £16k.
    However the claimant has told the DWP that the 2 properties are one property and they have awarded JSA income based.

    technically we could pay based on the JSA income based passport benefit award BUT he admitted the offence to us. He has now appealed against the decision to cancel the CTB on the grounds that he is getting JSA. I cannot wait for adjudication from DWP [and indeed they are saying they are not really interested as they accpet that its one property.

    Land Reg shows 2 seperate properties + council tax have seperate liabilities.

    What would you do ?


    Kevin D

    May be I’ve missed something, but the question relating to the properties is one of fact.

    If the evidence shows there are two properties, it would seem entirely reasonable to go behind the DWP decision; relying on [b:f809cc7ed9]Hamilton[/b:f809cc7ed9].


    You’ll probably also have to refer to the relevant JSA regs relating to capital calculation(s). These being found at:


    In particular, [b:f809cc7ed9]JSARs[/b:f809cc7ed9] 107 / 108 / 111 / Sch 8

    Sorry if this states the obvious, but any valuation will need to take into account the 10% disregard and any incumbrance.



    I dont think you can rely on Hamilton if the claimant has presented the true facts to the DWP, and the DWP has simply come to a diffferent conclusion.

    This is because all capital must be disregarded where IS or income based JSA is (lawfuly) in payment

    The Court of Appeal held in Mia v SOS 25 July 2003 that if the family are normally occupying both properties as their home, then both should be disregarded as capital as the dwelling ocupied as the home.

    Lord Justice Ward summed the issue up thus at para 1 of the judgement:

    “The issue.
    1. This is the question which arises in this appeal: is there one dwelling or two dwellings occupied as the home where a claimant for jobseeker’s allowance normally occupies as his home two houses separated from each other by other houses in the street, each house being overcrowded if the claimant and his large family were removed from both houses into only one of them? On 23rd May 2002 the Social Security Commissioner, Mr E.A.L. Bano, so construed the Jobseeker’s Allowance Regulations 1996 as to lead him to the conclusion that there could be only one dwelling in those circumstances but he gave the Secretary of State permission to appeal to us.”

    The appeal was dismissed.

    Maybe your Council may have to register the properties as 1 dwelling for CTX purposes in this case

Viewing 3 posts - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.