AIP's still make me nervous!!
My 96 yo client's in her 5 yr AIP. Her home has been empty for 18 months after she moved into sheltered accommodation. All benefits in pay at present - AA, RP, GPC and HB so everything ok at moment. It's always been her intention that the house/money from any sale will be left to her three 'kids' (all in 70's but not on means tested benefits) and since moving out she's been adamant she wants "nowt to do with it any more". She's been considering transferring it to her deps but not got around to it yet as it's been a low (read non existent)priority. It's been up for sale but hasn't sold so the family are considering letting it before it gets vandalised. From my understanding capital from the sale shouldn't affect her GPC but I assume rental income does ? What if she did transfer the property? - I wouldn't like it to count as deprivation.

I had a similar case and the Pension Service withdrew my clients PC award on the basis of the rental income she was receiving. I uccessfully appealed on the basis that the property became was a second home and therefore was an increase in capital, and not a change under Regulation 12. This was therefore ignored for the duration of the AIP. Hope this helps.

Thanks Zoe. I've got myself really bogged down with this and can't now see the wood for the trees. What about if the property is transferred - will it be considered as deprivation or will this not be relevant in an AIP

Sue

On deprivation and leaving the house to the 'kids' see R(SB)9/91, CJSA1395/2002 and, more promisingly, CIS 242/1993.

Regards
Paul

Thanks for that Paul. Can't locate the the first or last CDs. Can you direct me please ?
Cheers
Sue

Sue

Both are in the toolkit area of rightsnet.

Doh

I've had a good look at the CDs - thanks Paul - but as yet don't even know whether there'd be an adverse decision to challenge. If the property were to be transferred then in normal circs deprivation of notional capital would come into it which could then be challenged.
However it seems to me that if capital is disregarded/ignored during the AIP, surely it's then 'invisible' and so deprivation of any capital, notional or not, can't come into it until the end of the AIP and at that point my client will be almost 99 yo.

Waddyathink?

Researched the regs backwards Sue until my head was spinning and unless I've missed the bleedin' obvious (entirely possible) I agree with you.

Paul

I thought I'd already posted this but I can't find it.
My head's been exactly the same as yours Paul!

I eventually thought I'd get the opinion of a DM and after discussing it he seems to agree and thinks it will be ok until the end of the 5 yr AIP. Mind you I wouldn't like to rely on this if it ever does comes to the crunch.

Soooo my next query was why do some clients who got PC in Oct 2003 get a 5 yr AIP when the regs state in this situation can be between 5 and 7. He says it's the computer which decides - oh ok so that's alright then. It'd obviously be better with a 7 yr as she'll then be nearly 101.....still you never know, so look out for my posting in 2010.

Thanks to you and Zoe for your trouble
Sue