loans to claimants for specific purpose ....

this is interesting and useful for any means tested benefit:

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/AAC/2016/469.html

claimant was lent money by his mother for the specific purpose of buying his house

DM and FT said it was capital and disallowed his JSA claim

UT said, wrong.  it wasn’t his capital as he had a duty to EITHER use it for the purpose for which it was lent, OR repay it.

Bit surprised that they have left the appellant’s address in the decision.

The reasoning seems heavy on Scottish Law - does the principle carry over south of the border?

ROBBO - 25 October 2016 12:05 PM

The reasoning seems heavy on Scottish Law - does the principle carry over south of the border?

8. The Secretary of State accepts that under the Private Law of England and Wales the sums of money involved in this appeal would be regarded as being held in trust by the claimant.  That follows from Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd [1970] AC 567, as submitted in paragraph 21 of document 124.  Mr Pirie adhered to that submission orally and in so doing drew my attention to R(SB) 53/83.  That Commissioner’s decision clearly supported the proposition advanced by the Secretary of State in paragraph 21.  I entirely agree with that proposition.  I also agree with the further submission made on behalf of the Secretary of State in paragraph 21 that “it would be unsatisfactory if they were different results on the same facts north and south of the border.” Only if the relevant principles and rules of Scots Law had compelled me to reach a different outcome from that in R(SB) 53/83 would I have decided this case against the claimant. 

Good point.  I was so distracted by the idea of mutuum I must have missed that somehow.

Under a Quistclose trust the beneficial interest in the capital remains with the provider. Successfully argued the same point myself earlier this year.

The issue seems to be that the DWP doesn’t have anyone who fully understands resulting trusts. This case had run on for over two years and four adjournments; largely due to the fact that the PO never turned up, despite being ordered too. Finally we had a hearing in their absence which lasted for two hours whilst I explained the intricacies of the transactions, and the Judgment went in our favour with the DWP being ordered to recalculate excluding the trust capital.

Even after all that, they had the temerity to request a Statement of Reasons.

And, there were two court cases following Quistclose that decided that the money doesn’t even have to be in a sparate bank account either