A couple of thoughts:
1. I think she has a fairly strong claim in negligence against the solicitor. The solicitor was fully aware of her benefits position, having recieved full information from the CRU, and probably the client. It seems to me that she is entitled to assume that she is being given full and correct advice relating to her situation when the solicitor is acting for her and successfully obtaining compensation.
2. If a deprivation decision is made, the arguments I would use are that she could have put the whole sum into trust, thereby protecting her benefits, without falling foul of the deprivation rules. In spending the money without it being in trust why should her intention by any more blameworthy than if she had spent it all from a trust? If she had wanted to maximise her benefits for a long time she could have put the funds into trust all at once. The effect of her spending it in the present situation is no different.
Simon Ennals
|