I'm less than convinced that there is necessarily a problem with posting queries on the board that *may* result in a conflict of interest.
There is a particular subject ("exempt accommodation") on which I have contributed on more than one occasion - fairly vociferously too. However, other contributors have also posted on that subject, often on the same threads. Some of the posters, myself included, have dealt with cases on that issue and, anonymously, referred to the cases to make a point. Sometimes, both parties know precisely which cases are at issue because we have all had direct involvement with those exact same cases. In my view, neither party has been prejudiced even though, on occasion, the discussion has been somewhat, er, "robust".
Where there *may* be a conflict of interests on my part, this has been stated in posts on the relevant threads.
For what it's worth, I don't see a problem with this thread. And, at least the person posting has sought advice instead of simply doing what one or two LAs may have done - i.e. making a good fist of an ostrich impression. Surely, the most important requirement is that, ultimately, the correct decision is reached.
With regard to the issue of "notional capital", I broadly agree with S Lloyd's response - certainly in terms of separating the issues (i.e. consideration needs to be given to whether there is/was "actual" capital; or "notional" capital (or both). And, if "notional" capital is being looked at, was there a "significant operative purpose" in the disposal of the capital for the purpose of obtaining, or increasing, HB/CTB?).
Regards
|