Housing Benefit refused due to marital property

The mere fact of ownership of the property doesn’t necessarily mean it has a value that results in non-entitlement to benefit.

Is your client the sole owner, or joint owner?  If sole owner, she would presumably be within her rights to attempt to evict her former partner - notwithstanding that he might counter claim as part of a settlement.

The ongoing occupancy would undoubtedly reduce the potential value to a willing buyer.  There is somewhat selective case law suggesting the value would be nil, but that will be unusual.  Also, is there any outstanding mortgage, or any other encumbrance, on the property?  These must be deducted from the market value (NB:  10% must first be deducted from the full market value in any case).

If the ownership is joint, the valuation must be of the half - it could be well under the face value 50% because of the continued occupancy of the former partner.

In short, I’d get more info and would, if still in time, ask the LA for a statement of reasons, including the way in which it reached the valuation of the property.

Have a look at R(IS)1/03 (the right to take proceedings to secure a property adjustment order is not a capital asset) and R(JSA)1/02 (valuation of a share in a jointly held property)

thanks guys, at the moment no decision has been made and it has been with a decision maker for almost 6 weeks. My spy from the inside ;) has given me this information so i will hang fire and see what happens!