Good morning all,

I probably already know this and i'm answering my own questions, but I thought better to ask than sit and ponder.

I have a client that has serious support needs, she has no capital and receives I/S. The client desperately needs accomodation with support.

The only problem is that she has been the owner of her property since her partner died. We have been made aware that processions for transfering the property into her childrens names took place 4 yrs ago. A couple of months ago the transfer was complete. The client obviously stands to make no money out of the property.

Am i right in saying that the client is entitled to HB/CTB now as they have NOT deprived themselves of capital and tranfered the property to the childrens names with NO intent to make any money from this?

Another point, if the children sold the property the client would also not be drepriving themselves?

Your thoughts on this would helpful. Where has the sun gone?

The post is a bit confusing as to who owns / owned the property. So, I've made the assumption that the clmt owned the property and ownership was then transferred to the children.

If that is the case, why was the property transferred to the children? Also, are the children still dependants? If not, how old are they?

As an aside, this may not be about deprivation at all, but it depends on the circumstances.

Regards

Sorry Kevin, yes the client owned the property and now the transfer has been made into the children/childrens names.

To our knowledge the client is 60 and the children are obviously no longer dependants, we have not been made aware of there exact age.

We believe the property was transfered to the children as the client had support needs and could no longer live by themselves. There may even be a possibility the children still reside in the property.

I would have thought that the LA would take into account support needs and allowed the application of HB.

I think i am missing the point about where there will be no deprivation?

From what you describe, I think that depravation will be the issue.
What the Council will probably want to know is why your client gave the property to the children as opposed to, for example, selling the property to raise capital.

If it looks to the LA that the reason was to obtain Housing Benefit, and possibly as a result Supporting People funding, then they could refuse the claim on the basis of depravation of capital.

Well, that actually complicates it further.....

Firstly, if the children are resident, your client will not be entitled to either HB or CTB.

HB would almost certainly be excluded on the grounds that the L/L (the children) is a close relative living in the same property - HBR 7(1)(b). The following issues relating to Regs 6 & 7 & 10 will also be, potentially, at issue:

1) is there actually a legally enforceable liability?

2) is the tenancy "for life"? (If so, nil HB)

3) is the agreement on a commercial basis?

4) did the clmt own the prop within the last 5 years and, if so, was she COMPELLED to relinquish ownership to stay in the prop? If no compulsion, then nil HB.

5) has the liability been created to take advantage of the HB scheme (i.e. "contrived")?


CTB would not be payable, because the resident owner(s) should be liable for CTAX. As your client would not be liable, there could not be any CTB. However, depending on the exact set up, it could be that one of the Council Tax Discounts may apply.


It's still unclear (to me at least) why the property was transferred. Presumably, your client has support needs irrespective of whether or not she owns the property, so I'm not clear why the support issue would be relevant to transferring ownership. Without more details, it is difficult to offer proper and accurate comment on the issue of capital.

Regards

The client wants to move out of the property that they have just transfered to there children, who apparently still reside.

The client wants to move into supported housing, the issue is whether or not the client can claim HB after just transfering a property she used to own to her children. The processions to start the transfer started 4 yrs ago.

The client has no interest in the property even if the children sell.

I still think the LA should accept the HB claim on this basis, that the claimant has no captial no interests in property and receives Income Support. The reason for moving out of the property the client no longer owns, is to move into Supported Housing as the client has a serious support need.

I think more info may be needed. Who has/had a beneficial interest in the property? If we assume for a moment that your client’s late husband had the sole beneficial interest. Then when he died was there a will? If so then whom did he leave his beneficial interest to? If there was no will then his beneficial interest will have been distributed between his surviving spouse and his children.

The legal owner merely stands as trustee for all those who have a beneficial interest. Thus the transfer of the legal title alone will not deprive a beneficial owner of his/her beneficial interest. In such a case the issue will be one of actual capital rather than deprivation and notional capital. Deprivation and notional capital should only be an issue if the transfer of legal title created some sort of discretionary trust.

Regards
Paul

bradw, you just said the magic word "Income Support". If the claimant is on Income Support they will be treated as possessing no capital for HB purposes.

I have always assumed you are talking about claiming HB on the property your client is hoping to move to which will include support.

If I am wrong and you are talking about the property they have just given to the children then this will open up a whole new can of worms.

Sorry if this has all been a bit misleading the intention was always to leave the property the client transfered to the children.

The client just wants and needs to move into supported housing. I take it then the client can move now i think i've baffeled myself today. This job don't get no easier. Wheres the sun gone?