UC and deprivation of capital rules for a domestic abuse victim

Hello

I’ve got a colleague who has a case relating to a client who was in an abusive relationship.

The client separated from their then-spouse and obtained a divorce in 2013, however there was dispute about the financial settlement following the divorce, and these were not settled until late 2021/early 2022. Upon settlement, they received a substantial (low six figure) sum from their ex-spouse, which triggered a massive drop in their mental health including suicidal ideation and attempts at suicide, as they felt this money was tied to their previous abuse and violence, and so did not wish to have the money.

As a result, they decided to give away the money, a five figure sum to a local charity and the rest to their children.

They then made a claim for Universal Credit as a single person, however this was denied this due to deprivation of capital rules. As part of the mandatory reconsideration, supporting evidence regarding their mental health and associated health impacts were submitted by their GP and consultant clinical psychologist, explaining their severe depression and anxiety, however the DWP have not changed their decision, and my colleague is assisting the client with an appeal to FTT.

Does anybody know of any relevant case law, or if there is any leniency in the capital rules for these circumstances?

Thanks

I don’t think its a case of any legal complexity. The question is whether, in disposing of the capital as she did, she was motivated to any significant extent by improving her benefit position. If not, then reg 50 doesn’t bite.

On her case, she was giving away ‘tainted’ money and if we accept the truth of that, there’s nothing more to it.

The DWP will say that she shouldn’t be believed, that she must have had some degree of understanding that this would affect her benefits, that the point was to improve the position of her kids whilst retaining an income for herself etc.

You are going to want to do everything you can to enhance her credibility but it will come down to whether a judge believes her.

The type of argument alluded to in ths previous thread, about the size of the sums being disposed of relative to the amount of available benefit, may be useful.

I’m assuming the claimant had been notified of capital rules - because if not then it can’t be deprivation for the purpose of getting benefit.

That’s probably a long shot but what might be more useful would be R(SB) 9/91 - obtaining benefit needs to be a significant operative purpose, and R(H) 1/06 - not whether the decision was reasonable or prudent but what the purpose was (and the latter also involves payments on divorce).  (Have you got access to Sweet & Maxwell annotated legislation? If so there is quite a lot of helpful case law in there).

It is ultimately a decision on the facts/judgement call by the tribunal so think I would try to get medical evidence and any other evidence that directly states that the purpose was not obtaining benefit - unusual to be able to get that but sounds like it might be available in your case.

This article from Citizens Advice is very useful resource for these types of cases.

Deprivation of capital

Thanks a lot folks! Very helpful from you all and some good resources we didn’t know about.

Hopefully all goes well at FTT.