Post by nickd on Jan 10, 2011 13:30:54 GMT 1
Here's another account of what the Government proposals call the 'basic mechanical advice' we provided under the Legal Aid scheme:
Mr and Mrs Good (an anonymous name which seems apt) came to see us over a refusal by the Local Authority to pay them Housing and Council Tax Benefit. Mr Good was able to claim some Disability Living Allowance for the severe problems he faced with his declining and well documented ill health.
Mr Good had retired on early ill health grounds after working hard all of his life, he and his wife lived off Mrs Good's modest earnings and received some Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Mr Good looked all set to be able to take a break and enjoy retirement, albeit constrained by ill health. This seemed only right after paying National Insurance contributions all his life; no one would begrudge them that, would they?
Well, all was well until Mr Good decided to draw his occupational retirement pension. He had the option of receiving either a lump sum or periodic payments. The only reason Mr Good had decided to claim his occupational pension (which he was able to do under the plan) was because one of his adult children had explained that they were in severe financial crisis and badly needed to pay off a substantial debt. The family member was in a bad way, stressed and being continually hounded by debt collectors.
Mr and Mrs Good had known something was up for some time but there had been a reluctance on the part of the family member to say what the problem was. The parents, as most parents would, decided they would help one of their family. It was a genuine act of coming to the aid of a family member who was in a real crisis, not uncommon in this day and age. I couldn't help but wonder how many other parents may have done the same thing?
Mr and Mrs Good correctly reported all of this to the Local Council who initially said all would be well; however, then came the bombshell. The Council took then took the view that giving the money away was an 'intentional deprivation of capital' and, as a result, their Housing and Council Tax Benefit was withdrawn.
This is where the deprivation rules become complicated and assume a claimant still has capital if they cannot satisfactorily explain why they disposed of the capital. The effect of the decision was that Mr and Mrs Good had now become Mr and Mrs 'Not-so-Good'. Following the removal of the benefits (which they would have been otherwise entitled to) they were now unable to afford their rent and both rent and Council Tax arrears were accruing.
Mr and Mrs Good felt aggrieved at the decision as they believed it was punishing them for doing a good deed for one of their family. They tried to appeal, but the Council held with their decision. The Council did however, suggest that Mr and Mrs Good came to see us for some specialist help.
We saw Mr and Mrs Good and took a full history. On the facts, we were able to ascertain that Mr and Mrs Good had an reasonable case. The grounds of appeal were that the regulations say that capital should only be treated under the 'deprivation' rules if it is intentionally disposed of in order to claim or improve a person's position on claiming benefits.
We argued that the intention behind the deprivation was what was most relevant, the argument was assisted by the fact that Mr Good had no other reason to take his pension settlement early. He could also have taken it in periodic payments which would have had far less impact on his entitlement. Mr Good's intention in disposing of the capital was (a) to help a close family member and (b) not to take advantage of the Housing Benefit rules. We found several case law precedents which supported our case.
There followed quite a few exchanges of letters with the Council who queried various elements of the case - we answered each and every one of these. We consistently argued the intention point behind the relevant rule. We drafted a submission with supporting evidence over the family member's debt and a statement saying how they'd 'asked mum and dad for some help'.
In the end the Council, to their credit, agreed with us and allowed Mr and Mrs Good their entitlement, also enabling them to clear their rent and Council Tax arrears as benefit was re-awarded on a retrospective basis. The need for an expensive Tribunal hearing was averted, although we would have been quite prepared to argue this one all the way. The Council agreed with us on the 'intention behind the disposal' aspect of our argument, the law was on the side of Mr and Mrs Good.
Mr and Mrs Good were naturally very pleased with the outcome and told us so in a very praiseworthy 'thank you' card. They were on the point of giving up before coming to see us, they had actually indicated they wanted to withdraw their appeal as they couldn't see how they could contest the decision. We praise the Council here, because they encouraged them to seek independent specialist. We did resolve this case but, it was only by possessing specialist knowledge of the regulations and by using case law which won the day.
Outcome: Mr and Mrs Good stay in their home and avoid eventual eviction by the Council. They also avoided bailiff action for Council tax arrears and other court action for knock-on problems with other financial commitments. In addition, our help also helped save the family member from the feelings of guilt they had about 'getting mum and dad in so much trouble'. It was a good outcome, we felt justifiably pleased over being able to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.
Basic 'mechanical advice'? you must be absolutely kidding!
Cost to the public purse: a fixed fee of £167 + VAT
If you want to reply to this post please register first. It is entirely free to register and should take about 20 seconds
Mr and Mrs Good (an anonymous name which seems apt) came to see us over a refusal by the Local Authority to pay them Housing and Council Tax Benefit. Mr Good was able to claim some Disability Living Allowance for the severe problems he faced with his declining and well documented ill health.
Mr Good had retired on early ill health grounds after working hard all of his life, he and his wife lived off Mrs Good's modest earnings and received some Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. Mr Good looked all set to be able to take a break and enjoy retirement, albeit constrained by ill health. This seemed only right after paying National Insurance contributions all his life; no one would begrudge them that, would they?
Well, all was well until Mr Good decided to draw his occupational retirement pension. He had the option of receiving either a lump sum or periodic payments. The only reason Mr Good had decided to claim his occupational pension (which he was able to do under the plan) was because one of his adult children had explained that they were in severe financial crisis and badly needed to pay off a substantial debt. The family member was in a bad way, stressed and being continually hounded by debt collectors.
Mr and Mrs Good had known something was up for some time but there had been a reluctance on the part of the family member to say what the problem was. The parents, as most parents would, decided they would help one of their family. It was a genuine act of coming to the aid of a family member who was in a real crisis, not uncommon in this day and age. I couldn't help but wonder how many other parents may have done the same thing?
Mr and Mrs Good correctly reported all of this to the Local Council who initially said all would be well; however, then came the bombshell. The Council took then took the view that giving the money away was an 'intentional deprivation of capital' and, as a result, their Housing and Council Tax Benefit was withdrawn.
This is where the deprivation rules become complicated and assume a claimant still has capital if they cannot satisfactorily explain why they disposed of the capital. The effect of the decision was that Mr and Mrs Good had now become Mr and Mrs 'Not-so-Good'. Following the removal of the benefits (which they would have been otherwise entitled to) they were now unable to afford their rent and both rent and Council Tax arrears were accruing.
Mr and Mrs Good felt aggrieved at the decision as they believed it was punishing them for doing a good deed for one of their family. They tried to appeal, but the Council held with their decision. The Council did however, suggest that Mr and Mrs Good came to see us for some specialist help.
We saw Mr and Mrs Good and took a full history. On the facts, we were able to ascertain that Mr and Mrs Good had an reasonable case. The grounds of appeal were that the regulations say that capital should only be treated under the 'deprivation' rules if it is intentionally disposed of in order to claim or improve a person's position on claiming benefits.
We argued that the intention behind the deprivation was what was most relevant, the argument was assisted by the fact that Mr Good had no other reason to take his pension settlement early. He could also have taken it in periodic payments which would have had far less impact on his entitlement. Mr Good's intention in disposing of the capital was (a) to help a close family member and (b) not to take advantage of the Housing Benefit rules. We found several case law precedents which supported our case.
There followed quite a few exchanges of letters with the Council who queried various elements of the case - we answered each and every one of these. We consistently argued the intention point behind the relevant rule. We drafted a submission with supporting evidence over the family member's debt and a statement saying how they'd 'asked mum and dad for some help'.
In the end the Council, to their credit, agreed with us and allowed Mr and Mrs Good their entitlement, also enabling them to clear their rent and Council Tax arrears as benefit was re-awarded on a retrospective basis. The need for an expensive Tribunal hearing was averted, although we would have been quite prepared to argue this one all the way. The Council agreed with us on the 'intention behind the disposal' aspect of our argument, the law was on the side of Mr and Mrs Good.
Mr and Mrs Good were naturally very pleased with the outcome and told us so in a very praiseworthy 'thank you' card. They were on the point of giving up before coming to see us, they had actually indicated they wanted to withdraw their appeal as they couldn't see how they could contest the decision. We praise the Council here, because they encouraged them to seek independent specialist. We did resolve this case but, it was only by possessing specialist knowledge of the regulations and by using case law which won the day.
Outcome: Mr and Mrs Good stay in their home and avoid eventual eviction by the Council. They also avoided bailiff action for Council tax arrears and other court action for knock-on problems with other financial commitments. In addition, our help also helped save the family member from the feelings of guilt they had about 'getting mum and dad in so much trouble'. It was a good outcome, we felt justifiably pleased over being able to bring this to a satisfactory conclusion.
Basic 'mechanical advice'? you must be absolutely kidding!
Cost to the public purse: a fixed fee of £167 + VAT
If you want to reply to this post please register first. It is entirely free to register and should take about 20 seconds
