i'm worried i might be missing something here
Clients are in receipt of couple Pension Credit. They live in a motorhome which they have parked on a piece of land they bought with the proceeds of sale of their last house and for which they had hoped to get planning permission but it has been refused (unsurprisingly! our planning team say tehre are no grounds to appeal).

This means that the value of the land is being counted in full as capital in tehir pension credit entitlement and so they are getting just £89.70 a week (£92 / week deduction for capital).

We are tryng to get the land revalued as a local land agent has valued it sigificantly below the vlaue given by the Pension Service/ Valuation office, but it is taking months and months.

i can't see anyway of having the land treated as their home (it's not even a caravan its a motorhome) and they say they can't sell it (or take steps to sell it to get 6 months disregard) beause then they'd have nowhere to park it to live.

both i and our planning team have suggested that bricks and mortar elsewhere seems to be the only possible answer (they are not gypsies and have always previously been in proper houses) but i guess there's a possiblity that i'm missing something.

Equally if anyone knows a way of getting the Valuation office to speed up a revaluation its been 6 months so far.

many thanks

Sorry, trying to get a handle on this. Some questions:

Did they want planning permission to park the motor home, or to build? I'm guessing the latter.

Why can they not put the land on the market and continue to live in the motor home parked there at least until it is sold?

Have you looked at CIS/427/1991 and considered whether it gives grounds for arguing that as long as the motor home is parked there and they have no other home the value of the land should be disregarded? I'm not sure, but think it might be worth a whirl

Does the Valuation Office's value assume there is, or could be, planning permission? If it does, can this be used to argue that the new valuation is bound to be lower and that an interim payment should be made to make up some of the difference?

hi Paul thanks for responding.- yes sorry, they moved onto the agricultural land and wanted permission to use it for residential purposes, (both built and caravan) which was refused. An enforcment notice was served to remove all domestic items from the land (we are seeking to vary that but residential permission isn't going to happen).

I'm honestly not clear about the reasons for not putting the land on the market and do need to talk to my colleagues (and client's) about this. It was my advice from the outset, however there may be planning/ housing reasons which I as a mere benefits mortal don't understand....

have tried the case you cite, but don't don't think it's a runner. i can't see that it can really be argued that the land is inextricably part of the 'property occupied as home', and it could clearly be sold separatly.

we have tried the 'how did you reach the valuation - you do realise there is no planning permission' line -
which is one of the points which the Pensions service/ valuation office are simply not responding to. We just seem to be hitting a brick wall.


- but thanks!

Yes, I think my pondering has come up with very little which you haven't already!

I think the only advice you can give is:

1) Clients really should put the land on the market. This will guarantee them a disregard for 6 months.

2)Pension Service should be asked to expedite valuation, and make an interim payment in the meantime (perhaps you could threaten JR to push them along?)

Unless

3) You can argue that seeking advice from your colleagues about the planning rules and challenging the planning decision and enforcement notice brings it under Para 2 of Schedule 5:

'Any premises which the claimant intends to occupy as his home, and in respect of which he is taking steps to obtain possession and has sought legal advice, or has commenced legal proceedings, with a view to obtaining possession, for a period of 26 weeks from the date on which he first sought such advice or first commenced such proceedings whichever is the earlier, or such longer period as is reasonable in the circumstances to enable him to obtain possession and commence occupation of those premises.'

?

many thanks Paul! i think the latter suggestion fails on the 'taking possession' point, but i'll have another think down those lines.

really grateful for your help, as ever

Caroline

Ask your planning department whether the land would actually qualify as "premises" there's loads of obscure case law about what does and doesn't for travellers/boaters and the like. Appeals under sections 6 through 10 of the '77 criminal law act i.e. "squatters rights" might prove useful as well.

If they're paying council tax then it's a good indicator that the land, as opposed to the vehicle, is being treated as their principle occupancy, as it can't be a "dwelling" without some permanency of structure and exclusivity of use... I think; that certainly works for boats.

Have a look at the case law around "hereditement" for the '47 rates act, (adopted as "dwelling" for the council tax act) if you can find any, it might give you good grounds to argue it's the ground that's the dwelling. Anyone who works on Council Tax Valuation tribunals will be a useful contact.

I might post a couple of links to useful articles if I can find 'em. It'll be this evening or tomorrow so watch this space.

http://www.voa.gov.uk/instructions/chapters/council%5Ftax/council%5Ftax%5Fman%5Fpn/frame.htm


http://www.canalworld.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=5466&hl=council+tax


try that!