My client has MND and a wife and 4 children aged 16 - 9. He was getting ISMI on his house but became entitled to insurance and got the mortgage paid off. The house is very small and they have been advised that there is little they can do to adapt the property. He stays in a small bedroom upstairs, unable to move out at all - no room for the sort of wheelchair he would need. His wife shares another bedroom with 3 daughters and the son has a 3rd bedroom.

They have sold this property and have identified a new house big enough for the wheelchair. This will mean a further mortgage of £80,000. I have had to advise her that the law says ISMI can be paid in theory but I am seriously worried. Does anyone have any experience of how this could be seen by IS? I have already explained that they would probably have to have proof that there was no other options.

And if he died after papers signed but before ISMI started what then?

Fri 28-Mar-08 10:03 AM by paul__moorhouse

Did he have an OT assessement done which confirms he needs wheelchair access and that adapting the old house was not a viable option? I would have thought that that ought to be accepted as sufficient evidence. But I generally don't find DWP are awkward about seeking evidence from people who are terminally ill, they just make up for this by demanding impossible levels of evidence from everyone else.

I don't see any problem with your second question. Are you concerned about the 'qualifying period'?

If your clients have been on IS, albeit not including ISMI, for more than 39 weeks then there won't be any qualifiying period to serve.

If they have not and have to serve a qualifying period, I still don't think that there is an issue as Para 4 (9) of Schedule 3 says 'the loan WAS TAKEN OUT..... to acquire alternative accommodation more suited to the special needs of a disabled person than the accommodation which was occupied before the acquisition by the claimant.' So the test applies only at the time that the loan is taken out, not at the time that ISMI starts to be paid.

Thanks for that - it makes me feel more hopeful as yes we do have an appropriate OT's report. She is also gathering proof that there was nothing else suitable at a lower price. It is true that the DWP is often better with terminally ill people but not always.

My worry on the 2nd question was the 'was taken out' bit as they have served their 39 weeks. Again I am comforted by your certainty that the interpretation of that is clear.

Fri 28-Mar-08 11:56 AM by Paul_Treloar_

Paddy from our TSU says that he can’t see a problem with payment, but they should get good supporting evidence from OT, doctors, social workers, etc saying exactly why the move was necessary.

Housing costs should still be met if he dies before moving in but after purchase as long as they become joint owners or she is the sole owner (I don’t think it will work if he is sole owner and she inherits, but I doubt that’s the case).

Have a look at para 4(9) Sch 3 IS Gen Regs. The conditions are that the loan was taken out to buy a property more suited to the needs of a disabled person than the unsuitable property was occupied by the claimant before acquisition. It is not necessary for the claimant to be the disabled person. Whether he or she is the claimant now shouldn’t make a difference; if she becomes the claimant after the death the wording of the paragraph will still apply