I have had an appeal from a young girl regarding an Overpayment of HB.

She made her claim for HB/CTC in Jan 06 following the birth of her child, she declared capital of around £2k.

Following a fraud data matching exersise it turns out she previously had £20k in a savings account which was closed in january 06.

The claimant states that this account was opened for her by her ex-partner and it was money for to be used for a deposite for a house. When the relationship broke down her ex-partner demanded the money back. The relationship was extremly violent and the claiment says she feared for her and her childs safty if she did not repay the money to her ex-partner. The money was repaid 10 days after the claim was made.

Whilst I appriciate that this does look like deprivitaion of capital I have a tendancy to believe this girl!

Is there anyway that she can prove that this money was repaid to her ex and that the money belonged to him and therefore proove that she did not delibaratly deprive herself in oder to receive HB.

I am quite new to all this so any help would be appriciated.

Thanks

Shakira

Assuming that all the money was paid into her account by the ex in one lump sum from his acct, and then paid back to his acct, again in one lump sum, then there will be a paper trail to substantiate her story. A signed statement from the ex would also be of help, if they are speaking at all.

The problem lies in the whether the DM/Tribunal accept that (a) it wasn't her money to start with, (b) it had to be repaid to the real owner, as she was only "looking" after it: which of course raises the question, why would anyone happily trust another person not related to them with £20,000 of their money?.

Have a look at R(SB) 53/83.

This was a case where a son lent his father capital for the sole purpose of a visit to India. However, the father died before he could carry out the visit.

Using the principle established in Barclays Bank v Quistclose Investments LtD (1970), the commissioner decided that the father held the money on a resulting trust for the son. As the purpose of the loan could not be carried out then the money reverted to the son.
Thus because the money never actually belonged to the father it was, therefore, not part of his resources.

If the same principles apply to your client's case then there can be no deprivation as the money never belonged to your client in the first place.

Regards
Paul

There is some useful reading in the decision makers guidance. I think this case is about beneficial ownership of capital as suggested above.If the money didint actually belong to your client, deprivation doesnt come into it. The DM guidance will give you a good idea of what the DWP will take into account when making their decision. As i recall their guidance adopts a pretty reasonable approach in determining who should be treated as owning the money. It contains examples of money in claimants account belonging to someone else. I found it really useful when I had a similar case, you may not! Having never dealt with this type of case either it was a good starting point for me. There is really useful commentary in Bonner too. Good luck.