I have a client who inherited a pub franchise from her husband. It later transpired that it has always been registered in her name for VAT and the lease.

She has been in receipt of Incapacity Benefit for 9-10 years. Since the death of her husband she has employed staff/managers/accountants to carry out all duties to run the pub. My clients only involvement is writing cheques and doing the banking.

Originally she was found capable for work from the date of her husbands death, once the appeal was lodged the DWP found that she was actually capable of work from the date that her husband took on the pub, 2002.

The DWP have also found she failed to disclose the pub so has a £7000 overpayment.

This is my first de minimus appeal, and I would be grateful for any thoughts, experiences or potential arguments

Thanks

I've no experience of such appeals, just thoughts, I'm afraid, from when I used to manage an IB section.
The case law on de minimis is mainly ancient, but try CIB 5298/1997 and CIB 3507/2003. If she and her husband were in a self-employed business partnership then profit and loss accounts from the date her partner took over the pub may also assist, as it will show salaries paid and accountancy fees, thus supporting her lack of involvement in the franchise. :~)

Not sure I understand this, are you arguing that the work she did was de minimis? If so are you sure that is really the issue? I think you need to find out which descriptors she satisfied under the PCA and then assess whether her involvement in the pub undermines her entitlement to points under those descriptors.

Also how credible is your client? Why would she have the lease and be registered for VAT if she had no involvement? Who was the liscensee? Isn't she likely to have exceeded the earnings limit? Presumably she was a partner in the business? Since being widowed isn't instructing accountants etc, employing staff, accounting, being the liscencee(?)and being the franchisee more than de minimis? It is really hard to see that she does no more than signing cheques. Any tribunal are going to want to question her very closely on all this.

Are the DWP saying that her activities since then are evidence of her capacity before then or is it that her involvement before has only just come to light? It would also be useful to know what her medical conditions are.

This really doesn't add up, at least not without more information!