Hmmmm ... Any thoughts ?

Good evening all !

Think I’m ok with the first part of this double appeal to be heard at tribunal shortly but just looking for some thoughts on any other points i may be able to consider and add to my final submissions to the Tribunal Service ?

Cl separated from a very abusive husband in 1994. Subsequently in 1996 the court ordered that due to the husbands mental health the former marital home could only be sold under certain circumstances, ie : ex-husband was detained under the mental health act for more than six months, to mention one of four or five circumstances, or if leave of the court was obtained.

Cl has tried to prove that ex-husband is not using the property as his sole and main residence, one of the circumstances when she could force the sale of the home through the courts, employing solicitors on and off since 1996 to help her with this but she has been unable to prove that he is living elsewhere. Solicitors have also advised cl that it would be almost impossible for leave of the court to be obtained and will not pursue this on cl behalf.

Now, JCP have informed cl that she is not entitled to I.S because of the capital she owns in the property, approx. £55.000.00, and that she has been overpaid benefit of approx. £50.000.00 between 2003 and 2011.

H.B / C.T.B are still in payment because L.A appear to be disregarding capital in former marital home for the above reasons and cl was also rehoused by L.A some years ago.

We have evidence of the above and are in the process of appealing that the capital in the former marital home should be diseregarded for I.S purposes also (even though just over 16 years have lapsed since the court order was made) because it is reasonable to do so given the court order and legal advice, and the circumstances re : abuse cl. and children suffered.

However, there is also a question of deprivation of capital ... which i will go in to in the morning ...

Sleep well all and wake happy !

Well- clearly client is both taking/has taken reasonable steps to dispose of her share of the asset so value should be disregarded on that basis, plus from the sound of it she can’t dispose of it at present anyway (so even if there is a right to receive capital in future the current market value of her share must be negligible) so the actual capital issue seems to me to be in the bag.

But what’s the deprivation issue??

Thanks for the thought !
Will post second part of appeal later when i get a minute ... or at weekend ...