Hello, can someone help please? I have an elderly married couple who are in receipt of GPC. They sold the house they were living in due to problems with the neighbours and entered into an agreement with a relative that they would buy half of their house and rent the other half. As a result they paid a large sum of money to the family member to buy half of the house-this was all done via a solicitor.
They claimed CTB on the new property and this was refused as the council are saying they deliberately deprived themselves of capital for benefit purposes; as they are in receipt of GPC and therefore capital should not be an issue can the council do this? Could someone please tell me where i can get the legislation relating to CTB capital and PC? Any help would be greatly appreciated as they are being taken to court for non payment of council tax. Thanking you (in anticipation!)

Well my understanding is that if someone gets guarantee credit the council pay full CTB regardless of clients capital.
Has the client told The Pension Service of the change of address? This is one change they have to report regardless of any AIP.
Does the client have an AIP?
Has the Pension Service responded to the change of address and advised if it impacts on the guarantee credit? The decison on deprivation lies with The Pension Serive not the council.
Basically if the guarantee part stays unchanged I would say the CTB stays in payment.
CPAG Handbook is a good palce to start. Would look it up for you but about to go on my hols!

Thank you Seal, much appreciated and have a nice holiday (hope you had a nice holiday if you are already on your way!)

Notional Capital is dealt with in Reg 49 Housing Benefit Regulations 2006:
49(1) A claimant shall be treated as possessing capital of which he has deprived himself for the purpose of securing entitlement to hb or increasing the amount of that benefit except to the extent that that capital is reduced in accordance with regulation 50 )diminishing capital rule)

first the council have to show that the claimant knew of the capital limits and then ALSO that the reason for getting rid of the capital was to claim the benefit. If that was not in their mindset at all, they should not be considered to be under the Notional Capital Rules.

the problem may come where the council decide that there is a sham arrangement to pay rent and thereby the claimant is not liable for the rent (Reg 9 (1) and (2) HB Regs and HB (PC) regs) And also Reg 9(h): a person who is liable to make payments in respect of a dwelling shall be treated as if he were not so liable where--
(h) he previously owed, or his partner previously owned, the dwelling in respect of which the liability arises and less than five years have elapsed since he or his partner...ceased to own the property....

As for the Pension credit rules, Reg 26 HB(PC) Regs 2006 states:
"In the case of a claimant who is in receipt, or whose partner is in receipt, of a guarentee credit, the whole of his capital and income shall be disregarded."

good luck!

And notiional capital is reg 47 for HB (PC) regs, not reg 49 as i put in the last posting - sorry! It should be the same wording though