Just some work to prepare to appeal Housing and Council Tax benefit decision against any entitlement.
Citizens Advice
It is often the case that when a couple separate one party remains in the jointly owned property and one leaves. If the party that leaves then claims benefit, then the DWP / local authority may treat that person as having capital. For means tested benefits there are specific rules that should be applied when calculating the value of any equity in the property.
Firstly there is a theoretical split of the value equally between the owners. This will be done irrespective of the true proportion owned by each party. The DWP often stops at this point assessing a claimant’s capital as being their proportion of the total asset based on a valuation carried out by a district valuer. So, for example, where there are two joint owners with total equity in a home of £20,000 each party will be treated as having access to £10,000 irrespective of their actual shares. However, the Court of Appeal has now found that this rule applies only to property held under a joint tenancy, and not under a tenancy in common.
In Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Hourigan [2002] the Court of Appeal upheld Commissioner Lloyd-Davies decision in CIS/5906/99 finding that the correct approach where owners do not own their undivided share jointly with other owners (e.g. beneficial owners / tenants in common). This means that the valuation rules do not apply to claimants who are not jointly entitled to the equitable interest in the same capital asset.
Case law has provided that a further element must be considered, once the above issue has been determined, to reach an accurate assessment of capital from that asset. CIS/391/92 provides useful guidance on such a valuation and suggests it should have regard to: there being a willing seller in the claimant, the state of the property market at the time of claim, costs of sale and of taking court action to force the other owner(s) to sell and having regard to the facts of the case whether there would be a market for such a property share. It is therefore possible to argue that a share may have a negligible value if there is a resident joint owner who refuses to sell or buy out the other share of a property. It is important to make a clear case for such a valuation since recent case law suggests that as long as a court is likely to order a sale in this situation, the valuation of any joint share is not likely to be reduced by any great extent (Wilkinson v CAO, Court of Appeal 24 March 2000).
Citizens Advice
It is often the case that when a couple separate one party remains in the jointly owned property and one leaves. If the party that leaves then claims benefit, then the DWP / local authority may treat that person as having capital. For means tested benefits there are specific rules that should be applied when calculating the value of any equity in the property.
Firstly there is a theoretical split of the value equally between the owners. This will be done irrespective of the true proportion owned by each party. The DWP often stops at this point assessing a claimant’s capital as being their proportion of the total asset based on a valuation carried out by a district valuer. So, for example, where there are two joint owners with total equity in a home of £20,000 each party will be treated as having access to £10,000 irrespective of their actual shares. However, the Court of Appeal has now found that this rule applies only to property held under a joint tenancy, and not under a tenancy in common.
In Secretary of State for Work and Pensions v Hourigan [2002] the Court of Appeal upheld Commissioner Lloyd-Davies decision in CIS/5906/99 finding that the correct approach where owners do not own their undivided share jointly with other owners (e.g. beneficial owners / tenants in common). This means that the valuation rules do not apply to claimants who are not jointly entitled to the equitable interest in the same capital asset.
Case law has provided that a further element must be considered, once the above issue has been determined, to reach an accurate assessment of capital from that asset. CIS/391/92 provides useful guidance on such a valuation and suggests it should have regard to: there being a willing seller in the claimant, the state of the property market at the time of claim, costs of sale and of taking court action to force the other owner(s) to sell and having regard to the facts of the case whether there would be a market for such a property share. It is therefore possible to argue that a share may have a negligible value if there is a resident joint owner who refuses to sell or buy out the other share of a property. It is important to make a clear case for such a valuation since recent case law suggests that as long as a court is likely to order a sale in this situation, the valuation of any joint share is not likely to be reduced by any great extent (Wilkinson v CAO, Court of Appeal 24 March 2000).
Comment