Universal Credit and owning half a property, need advice

Chablar

Ef79 said:

Entitled to say that other property lived in by a relative who is long term incapacitated or over state pension qualifying age is disregarded. Check their website for details.

He isn't yet at pension age and is not disabled. What do they view as the difference between a family member who is and isn't disabled? Is the the implication that you force the sale of the house?

Grumpy_chap

Chablar said:

I'll have a look into a formal valuation. Do you mean a formal valuation of the caravan as a whole, or a formal valuation of one half ownership?

The valuation is possibly rather complex.

The initial point for any valuation would be the value of the whole caravan in open market with a willing seller and willing buyer.

Half of that value would be your wife's and half the FiL's.

However, the wife's half is diminished by the FiL's half being owned by a sitting tenant and reluctant (refusing) seller.  

You could start off using an online valuation tool.  An internet search for "value static caravan" will return various sites equivalent to We Buy Any Car but for static caravans.


The assessment for disregard should be done ignoring the value (though if the value were "nil" there'd be nothing to disregard). 
How far from state pension age is FiL? 
Would the disregard for a property being sold take you to the FiL reaching state pension age?

Another thought, is FiL in a position to buy out your wife's half of the caravan?
That would mean you then have simple cash / bank deposit value to consider in relation to benefits assessments.  It might impact the amount of future benefits but would be simple.

I think you are prudent to look at how this works and how to present things honestly but appropriately for UC assessments.  The last thing you want is a Decision Maker jumping to a conclusion about a £115k property from 5 years ago and determining that it must have gone up since then.

I'm really hopeful now that others will be able to give more advice than I can about the benefits and how to present this to a Decision Maker to ensure that they give the correct outcome.
I hope I have been of some help in the task of making sense of the Will.

kaMelo

Even though the FIL is not SPA nor disabled, it may still be possible to have the caravan disregarded if you can show it is impractical/impossible to realise the asset by selling.

The FIL owns half, doesn't want to sell up and is under no obligation to do so. The only way to override this is via court order forcing a sale which is neither cheap or quick and there is no guarantee the order would be granted.

Although the asset exists it's not her choice not to realise it, it's because doing so is impractical or impossible to achieve.

You will have to plead your case and hope a decision maker agrees.

Chablar

Grumpy_chap said:

You could start off using an online valuation tool.  An internet search for "value static caravan" will return various sites equivalent to We Buy Any Car but for static caravans.

The assessment for disregard should be done ignoring the value (though if the value were "nil" there'd be nothing to disregard). 
How far from state pension age is FiL? 
Would the disregard for a property being sold take you to the FiL reaching state pension age?

Another thought, is FiL in a position to buy out your wife's half of the caravan?
That would mean you then have simple cash / bank deposit value to consider in relation to benefits assessments.  It might impact the amount of future benefits but would be simple.

I think you are prudent to look at how this works and how to present things honestly but appropriately for UC assessments.  The last thing you want is a Decision Makerjumping to a conclusion about a £115k property from 5 years ago and determining that it must have gone up since then.

I'm really hopeful now that others will be able to give more advice than I can about the benefits and how to present this to a Decision Maker to ensure that they give the correct outcome.
I hope I have been of some help in the task of making sense of the Will.

I'll definitely look into that with pricing sites for caravans and such. My FiL is mid 50 so he's still a fair way off pension age and he's definitely not in a position to buy the other share of the property. 

You've definitely helped, I really appreciate it. I'll have a look into a lot of the things you've brought up amd get as much information as I can. Im not sure if it may be worth speaking to a solicitor too to see where things stand in terms of having to force a sale (not that we want to) and how complicated that would be. 
 

Chablar

kaMelo said:

Even though the FIL is not SPA nor disabled, it may still be possible to have the caravan disregarded if you can show it is impractical/impossible to realise the asset by selling.

The FIL owns half, doesn't want to sell up and is under no obligation to do so. The only way to override this is via court order forcing a sale which is neither cheap or quick and there is no guarantee the order would be granted.

Although the asset exists it's not her choice not to realise it, it's because doing so is impractical or impossible to achieve.

You will have to plead your case and hope a decision maker agrees.

Thanks for that, that's worth looking in to. We are due to see a solicitor soon about something else so I may bring it up to them to get some advice on that sort of thing. I don't know an awful lot about forcing the sale of a house you own half against someone else's will. 

huckster

Won't be counted as capital held if FIL lives in the caravan. Benefits would not expect part owner of a home, to have to move out if sold or see the part they don't own sold to another person, which might then cause them problems. 

Just provide all of the information to UC and no doubt disregard for the capital value of part of the caravan would be applied.

Grumpy_chap

huckster said:

Won't be counted as capital held if FIL lives in the caravan. Benefits would not expect part owner of a home, to have to move out if sold or see the part they don't own sold to another person, which might then cause them problems. 

Just provide all of the information to UC and no doubt disregard for the capital value of part of the caravan would be applied.

Can you provide a source for this?
The only definitive disregard I could find was if the FiL is disabled or over SPA.
It would be very useful for the OP if there is a definite disregard that has to apply.

Alice_Holt

Grumpy_chap said:

huckster said:

Won't be counted as capital held if FIL lives in the caravan. Benefits would not expect part owner of a home, to have to move out if sold or see the part they don't own sold to another person, which might then cause them problems. 

Just provide all of the information to UC and no doubt disregard for the capital value of part of the caravan would be applied.

Can you provide a source for this?
The only definitive disregard I could find was if the FiL is disabled or over SPA.
It would be very useful for the OP if there is a definite disregard that has to apply.

      OP  -  just to clarify re 'disabled'.  The DM guidance I linked to in the 3rd post on your thread, states:

      Premises lived in by a close relative The law

H2048 Premises that are occupied as the home by a close relative of a person are disregarded indefnitely where the close relative has
 1. LCW or
 2. reached the qualifying age for SPC..

 UC Regs, Sch 10, para 2

Note that LCW refers to Limited Capability for work (under UC).

These guidance pages would be useful for you to read when putting the case to DWP for disregarding the caravan. 
Para's H2031 on re more than one premises will be helpful to you.

Be aware that you have a right of appeal against any DM decision, and their judgement can be tested at tribunal.


I'll also repeat that you may wish to see if the site owner would give you a written valuation of your interest in the caravan (with FIL living there), as if this is helpful could be supplied to UC as evidence of value. I suspect any value in the caravan may be negligible.

I would tend to the view of huckster, but be aware that such DM decisions are judgements. I doubt that an exact parallel or disregard exists - but you may find examples in the guidance notes that have similarities.  
A tribunal judge would be aware of any case law that might apply (which a DWP DM may not).

Grumpy_chap

Alice_Holt said:

      OP  -  just to clarify re 'disabled'.  The DM guidance I linked to in the 3rd post on your thread, states:

      Premises lived in by a close relative The law

H2048 Premises that are occupied as the home by a close relative of a person are disregarded indefnitely where the close relative has
 1. LCW or
 2. reached the qualifying age for SPC..

 UC Regs, Sch 10, para 2

Note that LCW refers to Limited Capability for work (under UC).

Thank you for clarifying with regard to my use of the word "disabled" and the correct definition for this purpose being "LCW".  There is no indication from the OP that this is relevant in this case and the OP has confirmed that FiL is a good number of years away from State Pension.  
That all seems to mean that no automatic right of disregard exists.

I agree with your view that the value of half the caravan with FiL in residence and restrictions on ownership (over 50 site) may well be negligible. 
In this case, it may help to substitute the phrase "depreciating asset" in place of "caravan" as this makes the distinction between the caravan and a house rather clearer.  An investor may buy half of a house (at a large discount) with a sitting tenant on the basis of capital growth plus some rent in the mean-time.  It is unlikely an investor will want half of a depreciating asset.

I also agree that the disregard is reasonable given that FiL lives in the caravan and owns half.  The legal process to force a sale would be long and expensive.  The result to the state would be to make FiL homeless and then require social accommodation.  BUT, this all comes down to a DM applying discretion as there is no specific disregard dictated.

In fact, the simplest outcome might well be an official "peppercorn" valuation as there would then be nothing to disregard.

Chablar

huckster said:

Won't be counted as capital held if FIL lives in the caravan. Benefits would not expect part owner of a home, to have to move out if sold or see the part they don't own sold to another person, which might then cause them problems. 

Just provide all of the information to UC and no doubt disregard for the capital value of part of the caravan would be applied.

Thanks Huckster. That's what I'm hoping anyway. The other outcomes wouldn't really seem to male a whole lot of sense but we've had an up and down history with the benefits and their decisions (mainly with PIP / DLA). I think im just worried about doing the right thing and declaring it trusting the process, then having our whole income upended.  I've been looking online to try and find some information/ testimonials from people in similar positions but I've had no luck. 

Thanks Huckster.