PC - capital disregard of former home?

I have a client who split up with his wife 3 years ago and moved out of the family home.  He is still co-owner of this home (mortgage paid).  His wife, 23 year-old daugher and 6 year-old grandaughter still live in this home.

He currently lives in Housing Association property.  He was diagnosed with cancer at the end of last year and claimed cbESA after SSP ended.  He has been awarded contr-based ESA.  I advised him to claim PC / HB / CTB but was refused as he co-owns his former home and had been told this cannot be disregarded when working out his capital.

I have looked into this and cannot find a way of getting his share of the property disregarded as his wife, daugh and grand-daugh not incapacitated or over qualifying age for PC and cannot find any other rule that might apply Has anyone got any ideas or will he have to force his wife and family to sell the house in order to realise his capital?  My client obviously does not want to force a sale.  Is there any options / tactics?

Also, is his wife ‘estranged’?  Anyone got a definition of ‘estranged’ in circumstances mentioned in CPAG handbook regarding capital disregards?

Thanks in advance

Morning,

The following decisions may be of help to you - they are not specifically related to Pension Credit but will hopefully give some pointers or arguments you could use:

CIS/1846/2004 - R(IS) 5/05 - capital/value of matromonial home occupied by former partner
CH/117/2005 - estrangement and capital disregards
CIS/4096/2005 - whether estrangement requires mutuality of feeling

You should be able to find all of these decisions in the briefcase section

Cheers

John

Thanks for that.  The caselaw is really helpful.

Unfortunately, this has only confirmed to me that my client can only be treated as ‘estranged’ and therefore the former matrimonial home won’t be disregarded

What value did the Pension Service place on his share of the property?  The decision maker needs to have established the market value, that is, what a willing buyer would pay your client for his share.  The value of his share will be affected if his wife is, for example not willing to sell her share.  Taking into account a lower valuation of your client’s share, he may then not be debarred from receiving means-tested benefits.