Our clt is appealing against a decision on a substantial HB overpayment.The LA's case is that he and his wife are owners of the property for which he claimed HB as a tenant.Extracts from the Land Register appear to confirm this.
His side of the story is that he had to borrow heavily from his in-laws to buy the house, and when his financial hopes did not bear fruit and he was unable to repay them , it was agreed that they would be treated as owners of the house and that he would pay them what was described as rent.
The solicitors handling the appeal when it was lodged ( before it was passed to us )suggested that the clt was holding title as nominee for the in-laws and that there was therefore nothing wrong with the claim for HB.However, there appear to be no documents to support this.
The appeal hearing is some weeks away, so we are not short of time to prepare an argument.The difficulty is that the LA's case is very simple and very plausible:you can't be liable for rent on a house that you own!
If anyone has any suggestions, I'd be grateful to hear them.

An owner is defined as a person who is entield to dispose of the fee simple whether or not with the consent of the other joint owners.

Your client must be shown to be the beneficial owner of the property and not someone who is holding the property in trust ( the solictors argument)

In a deprivation of capital case CSB200/1995 the Commisioner said:

"..in rejecting the contention that the brother had a two thirds interest in the original house, the tribunla seem to have assumed that, unless the contrary was proved by credible evidence of the intentions of the parties, the fact that the property was vested in the claimants name alone established that the brother had no interst in it. The brohter can, however, have acquired an equitable interest in it by virtue of the equitable presumtions that arise when property is purchased with money and/or mortgages provided by persons in specified proportions."

You will probably need to show that the relatives provided virtually all of the money in order to succeed with an argument based on equitable interest ie you will have to show that your client can not even be considered to be a joint owner, along with the relatives

Stainsby,
Many thanks.

I think that a number of issues have been conflated here.

Take the following scenario: -

A puts up the entire purchase price on the house.
B is the motgagor and holds the legal title.

Therefore: -
B then holds the house on a resulting trust for A.
B as the owner of the fee simple is the sole owner in law.
A as the beneficial owner is the sole owner in equity only.
B is entitled to dispose of the fee simple, A is not.
B has no beneficial interest in the house because the entire proceeds would go to A on its sale (all other things being equal).

This is a simple scenario but outlines basic principles.

Regards
Paul

Paul (Nevip),
Thanks for the advice.Things are looking a bit clearer now.
If you know of any case law, particularly on Scottish cases, I'd be grateful for an e-mail.
Regards, and thanks again.