Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number: R(IS)2/93
File Number: CIS 449 1990
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner: Mr M. H. Johnson
Date Of Decision: 02/12/1991
Date Added: 28/06/2002
Main Category: Capital
Main Subcategory: Ownership/Possession
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes: Capital - savings of the claimant and her husband held in an account in the claimant’s sole name - whether claimant to be treated as beneficially entitled to the whole sum by virtue of a presumption of advancement On 21 March 1990 the claimant applied for income support. The claimant stated that she had savings totalling £6,195.20 deposited in a Building Society account in her sole name. She explained that the account had been taken out when she had been single but that over the previous three to four years the bulk of the money deposited had come from her husband. She further explained that the account was a matrimonial asset that was subject to divorce proceedings and that her solicitors had advised her that the most she could hope to retain from the account was half of its value. The adjudication officer decided that the claimant was the sole beneficial owner of the monies in the account and disallowed benefit for the period 8 March 1990 to 10 April 1990 on the grounds that the claimant’s capital exceeded the prescribed amount i.e. £6,000. Income support was awarded from 11 April 1990 taking into account a tariff income based on capital of £6,195.20. On appeal a tribunal upheld the adjudication officers decision and the claimant appealed to the Commissioner. Held that: 1. “beneficially entitled in possession” means that a person is entitled to an asset for his own benefit and not as a trustee for others (para. 9); 2. the general rule is that where a person transfers his property to a stranger a resulting trust arises in favour of the transferor, but in the case of a transfer by a man to his wife or child a presumption of advancement arises instead (para. 11); 3. in present day conditions the presumption of advancement as between huband and wife is weak and can readily be rebutted by evidence to the contrary (para. 12); 4. where savings have been made possible by joint efforts or indirect contributions it is necessary to look beyond the question of who provided the funds (para. 13); 5. once it has been established that beneficial ownership is shared regulation 52 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 applies. Each beneficial owner is treated as having an equal share of the savings account (para. 14). The claimant’s appeal was allowed.
Decision(s) to Download: Is02_93.doc Is02_93.doc