Forum Home → Discussion → Housing costs → Thread
HB capital issues and ‘Jones v Kernott’
I have a customer who has a share in a former marital home which he left many years ago. This share is preventing him from claiming HB as he is presumed to have capital over £16k. I understand that his share is an undefined ‘joint tenancy’ type of share so it is assumed that he will have a 50% presumed share, albeit based on the market value of what such a share in a partially occupied house would be worth.
The customer concerned tells me that he left very early on the in the arrangement so he paid little towards the mortgage on the property and nothing towards any subsequent upkeep. Were his ‘share’ to be assessed in terms of what he contributed it would be so negligible that it would likely be well below £16k. There was a 2011 Supreme Court case ‘Jones v Kernott’ where the long standing presumption of a 50/50 split in what I take to be similar circumstances was actually split 90/10 in favour of the resident who had contributed most.
I have 2 questions:
1) Has the case ‘Jones v Kernott’ had any impact on the assessment of capital for any means tested benefits and/or does anyone think it might assist my customer in this instance?
2) If HB had been refused years ago and was not appealed against at the time what would be the position with a new HB claim now? Could the capital issue be looked at now (perhaps in view of the case above) or would any raising of this issue be effectively prevented by some kind of ‘res judicata’ principle?