Claimant and son owning property in unequal shares — Claimant deemed to possess equal interest in property for purposes of regulation 52 of Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 — Whether regulation 52 applicable to tenants in common
The claimant had purchased her home from the local authority with the financial assistance of her son, who had contributed five-sixths of the purchase price. Following her subsequent move into residential care, her income support was terminated. A social security tribunal found that, pursuant to regulation 52 of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, the claimant beneficially owned a half-share in the value of the house and did not qualify for income support.
That decision was the subject of several appeals. The issue on this appeal was whether, on the correct interpretation of regulation 52, the claimant was to be artificially deemed to have been the beneficial owner of one-half of the property.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
Regulation 52 dealt with a situation whereby all parties were jointly entitled to the equitable interest in the same capital asset, and did not each possess a separate share in the equitable interest. Thus, if one of two joint tenants died, the other was entitled, by survivorship, to the whole beneficial interest. Unity of interest was a necessary feature of such a joint tenancy, but the natural effect of regulation 52 was to treat that unity of interest as severed so that the claimant was treated as having an equal share in the entire beneficial interest.
With tenancies in common, there was no need to artificially compute the claimant’s entitlement to the capital. The beneficial interest owned by a tenant in common was an asset that was separately disposable. In the instant case, the claimant’s capital asset was a one-sixth interest in the property. A tenant in common did not come within the meaning of regulation 52, and was not deemed to be beneficially entitled to an equal share in the property for the purposes of that regulation.
John Howell QC and Kate Gallafent (instructed by Child Poverty Action Group) appeared for the claimant; Nathalie Lieven (instructed by the solicitor to the Department of Work and Pensions) appeared for the defendant.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
