The claimant had spent some twelve thousand pounds on a car. She now appealed a refusal of benefit based upon the suggestion that she had deliberately reduced her capital to make herself eligible. She had sold land, but the proceeds had been used to repay debts. For one debt, a friend proposed that they purchase the car to be held as security for the debt.
Held: The tribunal had accepted that before the sale, the creditor friend had been pressing for repayment, and that in practice the car belonged to the friend. The court was ‘not presently persuaded that a debtor who repays a debt repayable on demand but which has not in fact been demanded, e.g. a bank overdraft, must by virtue of Regulation 51 necessarily be treated as possessing that sum as capital. ‘ Even if the debt is not immediately repayable, the repayment of it by a debtor will not necessarily have been made for the forbidden purpose. It is a question of fact. Appeal allowed.
Judges:
Lord Justice Dyson Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Schiemann
Citations:
[2003] EWCA Civ 964
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – R(SB) 12/91 SSAT 1991
The Tribunal sought to construe the phrase ‘an immediately repayable debt’ for Income Support purposes : ‘A person has to pay his debts. He has no choice in the matter and if he has no choice, then any divesting of capital resources in pursuance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Benefits
Updated: 17 October 2022; Ref: scu.184776
