I have clients who took out Equity Release in 2002 of £27,000. They now have a Pension Credit Claim due to Carer Premium gained after AA award. Owing to income they only entitled to SPC but this will also give some CTB. Both important as this will passport them to free disabled adaptations to home.
Pension Credit are being really awkward, dragging claim out since beg June!. My clients bought a car, had garage roof done and bought furniture in '02. PC have even sent visiting officer to check paperwork, but now they want receipts for work done on roof etc. I am sure I can argue that Pension Credit came into force after the date of their Equity Release and therefore they could not be deemed to have deprived themselves of capital, also the time lapse, but could someone please give me some wording examples or a better argument. Thankyou.

have a look at CIS 515 2006 re receipts and standard of proof.

having raised capital on an equity release scheme, presumably for the purpose of financing things they needed but could otherwise not afford, i wonder how the DWP would establish that the spending took place "for the purpose of etc"...???

see also reg 21 (2) - the purchasing of goods or services if the expenditure was reasonable in the circumstances of the claimant's case is disregarded. what expenditure is in doubt - the garage roof, the car, the furniture? it is the reasonableness in their circumstances that is the issue, not the receipts...i can't see why this couldn't have been ascertained in JUne when the claim was made...

Have a look at R(IS) 14/93

This was a case of the change from Supplementary Benefit to income Support - During the time of Supplementary Benefit the client had had capital which he disposed of - he did not then claim benefit until after Income support had been introduced.

The arguement accepted by the Commissioner was that the claimant could not have deprived themselves of capital with the intention of claiming a benefit that did not exist at the time of the alleged deprivation. Plus of course in this case the claimant could not possibly know in 2002 that PC would be introduced at some point in the future.

In this case the same argument must surely apply. the client obtained and disposed of capital in 2002. Pension credit was not introduced until October 2003 and the claim wasn't made until June of this year?

Notwithstanding Mike's pearl, this extract from a HB CD may be of wider interest in the context of "reasonableness" of expenditure for notional cap cases:

CH/264/2006 (para 15):

15. Not only was the tribunal's decision on reasonableness unnecessary, it was also wrong in that it treated reasonableness as irrelevant. Reasonableness is not decisive as a matter of law, but it is relevant as an evidentiary consideration. As I have said, the necessary purpose for regulation 43(1) can usually only be proved by inference. The reasonableness of a particular item of expenditure is relevant to whether that inference can be drawn. A claimant who uses part of an inheritance to replace a car that has just failed its MOT may be able to use the state of the car and the need for a replacement as evidence that the securing of entitlement to benefit was not a significant operative purpose of the expenditure. In contrast, a claimant who spends large sums of money on multiple purchases of the same luxury items will not be able to use reasonableness in that way. But, just as reasonableness is not decisive in a claimant's favour, unreasonableness is not decisive against a claimant. As I have said, inference must depend on all the circumstances of the case.

-------------------
Regards

Thank you for your replies. Mike's reply was my arguement but he has given some substance to it for me. Also I now have another tack with the reasonable spending etc., although Kevin's will take a few readings to get my head round! Too tired tonight - my head is spinning with the cases I had today!! Is nothing simple or straightforward these days? Thanks again.

hi kevin

that sounds like a very handy CD, but i haven't been able to find it on the commissioner's web-page or here - do you have a link, or could you send a copy to rightsnet? thanks.

jj