Deprivation of capital?

pmlindyloo

Ultimately only a decision maker can decide whether this is deprivation of capital.

More to the point is why B would want to gift his share to A? Makes no sense whatsoever. At the moment it doesn't affect B's benefits so why is he giving away this valuable asset?

Also relevant here and perhaps more to the point if B does gift his share then A owns the house and B would in effect become a lodger with no security in that property. A could ask him to leave at any time.

Perhaps this is the area you should be focussing on if you are looking for a good reason for B not to gift his share.

Does A want to sell the property?

Ames

The issue isn't deprivation of capital, it's financial abuse of b if they're being pressured to give away their share.

Topcat1982

Is B a vulnerable person? Elderly/disabled etc

BigAunty

Ames wrote: »

The issue isn't deprivation of capital, it's financial abuse of b if they're being pressured to give away their share.

My reading of the first post is that OP was hoping that the part owner on benefits could sidestep out of capital ownership so that the other person becoming the full homeowner could receive HB.

So obviously we don't know if there is/isn't any pressure between the parties which you've flagged up.

It looks like a quick check to see if the state would pay the rent if there was a change in ownership and whether JSA would be stopped.

The answer is that HB wouldn't be paid for 5 years anyhow, plus income related benefits like JSA and council tax benefit could be affected.

The notional rules for deprivation of capital could class that 30k as still existing and used in calculations even if the ex-owner didn't receive a penny for their share.

Ames

Using my phone so can't quote, post 7 the op says they want to stop b being pressured to give their share to a.

Housing_Benefit_Officer

We would be unable to pay Housing Benefit in the scenario described.

Any tenancy would be considered as contrived and non commercial irrespective of the 5 year rule.

hundredk

NYM wrote: »

I've just read one of your other threads....yes, I'm nosy

Is 'B' the easily influenced brother ? Did you gift/sell your share of the property to 'A' ....

It's confusing..:(

The house was previously owned by three brothers in 1/3 shares. My brother (A in this thread) bought my share so has 2/3 share. He has now almost convinced brother B to gift him his share. I'm not sure what arrangement they would have if/when A gets the whole house but I think As well as B not having his asset he may also become ineligible to JSA due to deprivation of capital. I only see B once every few weeks, B is vulnerable and any guidance I offer is quickly talked round as he lives with A who constantly pressures him.

A on this thread is B on the other and vice versa.

hundredk

TELLIT01 wrote: »

I really don't think there is a simple answer to the question of continuing entitlement to JSA. Immediate thoughts are that it probably would be considered to be deprivation of capital, but I don't know if the scenario has been played out in way which would create case law for a DM to work from. If it hasn't it will be down to the interpretation of an individual Decision Maker and therefore open to appeal.
I'm curious about the reasoning behind the original idea. It does sound more like some kind of tax fiddle than anything else.

A is up to no good. I think there's tax and possibly benefits fiddles afoot but at the moment I'm trying to prevent B making a mistake.

hundredk

BigAunty wrote: »

This scenario can still be classed as deprivation of capital which covers people giving away their assets in order to become entitled to benefts. It's not restricted to the sale of capital to other parties.

Deprivation of capital is about intentionally doing this. It's quite a complex area.

Obviously if B claimed HB that would be clear cut deprivation of capital. however B is already eligible for JSA so wouldn't 'become' eligible by gifting as he already is. So would he become ineligible for JSA by gifting?

hundredk

Ames wrote: »

The issue isn't deprivation of capital, it's financial abuse of b if they're being pressured to give away their share.

Exactly. I think if B thought his JSA would stop if he gifted his share he wouldn't gift it. Problem is how to get DWP to advise him of that before he goes ahead and gifts.