Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:	2010 UKUT 58 AAC
Reported Number:
File Number:	CCS 2074 2009
Appellant:	NM
Respondent:	CMEC
Judge/Commissioner:	Judge C. Turnbull
Date Of Decision:	25/02/2010
Date Added:	15/03/2010
Main Category:	Child support
Main Subcategory:	housing costs
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Reported as [2010] AACR 33. Maintenance assessment – exempt and protected income – calculation of eligible housing costs – whether charge on non-resident parent’s beneficial interest was a charge on home Mr M and Miss M completed the purchase of their home on 14 November 2006. The purchase price and costs totalled £94,793, £42,000 of which they borrowed under a first mortgage. On 16 November 2006, Mr M signed a loan agreement with Mr and Mrs B who agreed to loan £54,000 to Mr M, to be repaid by instalments with interest. The agreement provided that the loan was secured on the home. £52,543.93 of the loan was required to complete the purchase of the property. The First-tier Tribunal, on Miss M’s appeal against a decision assessing the amount of child support maintenance to be paid to Mr M, directed that in calculating the amount of Mr M’s housing costs the interest payable under the loan agreement was to be included. On Miss M’s appeal to the Upper Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal Judge set aside the First-tier Tribunal’s decision as wrong in law on the ground that exempt income had been wrongly calculated, and re-made the decision, making his own findings of fact. The Judge accepted that £52,543.93 of the sum lent under the loan agreement had been taken out to complete the purchase of the property. He found that this loan operated as a charge on Mr M’s beneficial interest in the home and not on the legal estate of the property. The question of law was whether sums payable pursuant to a charge secured only on the beneficial interest of one of the beneficial owners could be included as a housing cost for the purposes of calculating exempt and protected income. Held, allowing the appeal but substituting a decision in the non resident parent’s favour, that: 1. The charge on the non-resident parent’s beneficial interest was a mortgage or charge to which his home was subject, within the meaning of paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 3 to the Child Support (Maintenance Assessments and Special Cases) Regulations 1992 (paragraph 36); 2. Paragraph 3(2) applies explicitly only to exempt income but must apply equally to mortgage interest which is eligible as a housing cost in respect of protected income pursuant to paragraph 1(b) of Schedule 3 (paragraph 32).
Decision(s) to Download:	[2010] AACR 33 bv.doc