My client has appealed against a decision that he has capital in excess of the relevant limit for ibJSA entitlement.The department have evidence that his capital reduced by over £20,000 in the few weeks before he made the claim. He says he spent it on horses at race meetings but he has been unable to provide paper evidence that that is where the money went. Accordingly, the DM has decided that he still has the money.

If the tribunal accept my client's explanation and satisfy themselves that he no longer has the money, will they themselves then go on to consider whether the amount should nonetheless be taken into account as notional capital? Or would that require a separate decision by a DM?

ie Do we need to go into the tribunal with arguments against both actual and notional capital decisions or just the former?

If the DWP decision is that he has actual capital, and the tribunal decide he does not have actual capital, upon receipt of that decision DWP would then instigate a deprivation of capital investigation. However I don't think they will get very far if the claimant shows he has a gambling addiction. Whether the tribunal will want to explore that issue is another matter, I doubt it, if it isn't part of the DWP decision.

I think that a tribunal could, and probably should, go on to decide the notional capital aspect. In fact, the appeal submission should suggest this, in the event that the tribunal accepts that your client no longer possessed the capital. If the submission does not suggest dealing with the potential question of notional capital, perhaps you should raise it before the hearing.

Disposal of capital by gambling is easy to claim and difficult to prove one way or the other. Having a genuine gambling problem should, as the earlier thread says, be enough to show that getting benefit was not a significant operative motive behind the deprivation. However, some tribunals have (understandably) no concept of how powerful and self destructive any addiction, including gambling, can be, and still seem to think of it as personal choice pure and simple. Any tribunal member who actually does understand gambling will be able to spot a bluffer at 20 paces

(Brian)