I need help with a case where a pensioner couple live in their daughter's property and their daughter lives in their property. This is because their daughter is disabled and their house was adapted for her needs. When the couple claimed pension savings credit their own home was taken into account as capital which resulted in there being no entitlement because of the capital value being taken into account.

Income Support General Regulations 1987 Schedule 10 4.(a) and State Pension Credit Regulations 2002 Shedule V 4.a have slightly different wording and the latter is quoted by the decision maker for not disregarding the property because the claimant is not a "single claimant".

House of Commons Hansard Written Answere for 10/4/04 (pt39) ....the value of a second property which is occupied by someone who is aged 60 or over or incapacited and who is a relative of the income support claimant or their parter is ignored.

I have to confess that I had not noticed the change until now, and I dont feel qualified to advise re an HRA or vires challenge, but could you not argue that when the arrangement was first made it created a tenancy for life (which I believe is deemed to be 90 years) at a peppercorn rent.

The value of the property is not the market value with vacant possession, but the value with a sitting tenant and no rental income.

Not sure if there would be a market in such investments, or what a willing buyer would pay, given that (s)he would have to wait a lifetime to see a return on it

Blimey, I hadn't noticed it either. Nor, in at least two cases I can think of, have the Pensions Service. Surely must be ultra vires, or something. Would be very interested to hear how this one develops.

See rightsnet news item on 13/5/04 - PS aware of the difference and intend to rectify it shortly, but should request ex-gratia payments in the meantime.