Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number:	R(SB)12/91
File Number:	CSB 1198 1989
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner:	Dr D. G. Rice
Date Of Decision:	14/03/1991
Date Added:	26/06/2002
Main Category:	Capital
Main Subcategory:	Notional Capital: deprivation
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes:	Notional capital deprivation of capital whether claimant can intend to obtain benefit if unaware of the capital limit whether claimant can intend to obtain benefit if repaying debts The claimant was refused supplementary benefit because his resources exceeded his requirements. His wife worked in their daughters shop and the AO calculated a notional income from this work, sufficient, after the appropriate disregard, to remove entitlement to benefit. On appeal, the tribunal found that the means of the daughter were such that she could not afford to pay more than the actual sum of £15 per week. The claimant was therefore entitled to supplementary benefit subject to the capital limit, then £3,000. However, the tribunal went on to find that the claimant had paid into his bank account the net proceeds of a maturing insurance policy which brought his capital resources to £4,444.54. A few days after this deposit he gave the sum of £3,665 to his two daughters in repayment of alleged debts. The tribunal decided that the claimant was caught by regulation 4(1) of the Resources Regulations having deprived himself of the sum of £3,665 for the purpose of securing supplementary benefit. The claimant appealed to the Commissioner. Held that: 1. without knowledge of the capital limit a claimant cannot be caught by regulation 4(1) (para. 9). In deciding whether the claimant knew of this limit the tribunal should take account of all the circumstantial evidence, including the facts that, in the present case, the claimant was in receipt of form B3 which in turn refers to forms UBL18 and SB9 and he was an accountant with a corresponding educational standing (para. 15); 2. where a claimant contends that he owed money to creditors his oral evidence should be supported by particular evidence as to how and when the debt was created and where possible, by documentation. Bland, unsupported allegations should be approached with grave suspicion (paras. 11 and 12); 3. where there is a legal debt, capable of enforcement in the courts and such a debt is immediately repayable, regulation 4(1) cannot apply to any sum used to reduce or discharge that debt (para. 15). A person has to pay his debts, he has no choice in the matter and, if he has no choice, any divesting of capital cannot be for the purpose of securing or increasing benefit (para. 12).
Decision(s) to Download:	SB12_91.doc