Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(SB)9/91
File Number:	CSB 626 1989
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Dr D. G. Rice
Date Of Decision:	30/11/1990
Date Added:	26/06/2002
Main Category:	Capital
Main Subcategory:	Notional Capital: deprivation
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Notional capital - deprivation of capital whether intention to obtain benefit is shown where that is not the predominant motive but is a significant operative purpose The claimant had been receiving supplementary benefit as an owner occupier for some years. Following a stroke, she entered hospital on 6 November 1985 and her supplementary benefit ceased. On 4 April 1986, she transferred the beneficial interest in her property by deed of gift to her two daughters. Some three weeks later, the claimant entered a nursing home and supplementary benefit was reinstated. Her appointee notified the local office on 3 October 1986 that the claimants former home was up for sale, and it sold on 21 January 1987 fetching £26,000 net. The adjudication officer then decided that supplementary benefit had not been properly payable while the claimant had been in the nursing home as she had deprived herself of her property to secure supplementary benefit. On appeal, the tribunal varied the adjudication officers decision to the extent of disallowing supplementary benefit from the end of October 1986 and requiring a review in November 1988. The claimant, through the appointee, appealed to the Commissioner. Held that: 1. the phrase for the purpose of in regulation 4(1) of the Supplementary Benefit (Resources) Regulations 1981 requires the demonstration of a positive intention to secure benefit. It is not enough to assert that the natural consequences of deprivation was to secure an allowance (para. 8); 2. the intention to secure supplementary benefit need not to be the predominant motive underlying the relevant transaction (R(SB) 38/85 affirmed). In the present case, the predominant motive was doubtless to benefit the claimants children, but a significant operative purpose was also to obtain supplementary benefit and the claimant was caught by regulation 4(1) (paras. 14 and 15); 3. the claimant had to be treated as still possessed of the property, but its value fell to be disregarded for as long as regulation 6(1)(a)(i) or (iii) of the Resources Regulations applied, in this case until the house was sold (para. 15). Thereafter, the principle of diminishing capital would apply as in R(SB) 40/85 (para. 16); 4. at the time the deed of gift was made, the claimant was compos mentis; her daughter, as appointee, acted only to carry out the mechanical operation of making a formal claim and receiving benefit (paras. 9 and 13).
Decision(s) to Download:	Sb09_91.doc