|
Notes:
|
Capital - value of claimant's interest in former matrimonial home - correct practice in cases involving valuation evidence
The claimant claimed income-based jobseeker?s allowance from 2 November 1998. He declared as capital his interest in his former matrimonial home, which was occupied by his wife, from whom he was separated, and their daughter aged under 18. The property was held on a long lease, but the claimant did not give any details of its terms. He stated that his wife did not wish to leave the property. The adjudication officer decided that the claimant should be treated, in accordance with regulation 115 of the Jobseeker?s Allowance Regulations 1996, as possessing a half share in the property and requested advice from the valuation office regarding its value.
An opinion was provided by a valuer that the open market value of the whole property was £30,000 and the value of the claimant?s interest was £9,200. The valuer's evidence did not indicate what was the length of the lease or what assumptions had been made regarding the claimant?s prospects of enforcing a sale of the property against his wife?s wishes. On the basis of the valuer?s opinion, the adjudication officer decided that the claimant possessed capital in excess of £8,000 and so was not entitled to income based jobseeker?s allowance from 2 November 1998. The claimant appealed to a social security appeal tribunal who, on 26 August 1999, confirmed the adjudication officer?s decision, although they found that the claimant was entitled from 25 November 1999 as the capital could be disregarded from that date. The claimant appealed.
Held, allowing the appeal, that:
1. it is not a sufficient explanation of a decision for a tribunal to accept the opinion of a valuer as to the value of an interest in property, even where the valuer is shown to be an expert, without some reasons being given for adopting the value put forward (para. 10);
2. there is no rule of law that, where a wife and children are still living in the former matrimonial home, the value of a claimant?s share in that home must be regarded as nil (para. 11);
3. the value of the claimant?s share must be considered on the evidence in each case but, where a property is of modest value and none of that value can be realised by the claimant or any person acquiring his interest for a lengthy or unascertainable period, it is unlikely that anybody would be prepared to pay very much for that interest and it may have little or no value (para. 11);
4. proper valuation evidence should include:
(i) grounds on which the valuer is held out as having appropriate expert knowledge, including, where the value of a share in property is at issue, the valuer?s experience relating to such shares and their sale;
(ii) details of the property, including its location, size and condition, sufficient to provide a basis for the valuation;
(iii) in the case of leasehold property, details of the length of the lease and any special terms in it;
(iv) where the value of a share in property is in issue, an explanation of the factors considered relevant to the valuation and how they affect it;
(v) evidence of actual sales of comparable properties or interests, or an explanation of why these are not available,
but where this is not possible and the valuer has had to proceed on the basis of assumptions because of the lack of any relevant information, the report should state what is missing and the assumptions upon which the report is based (paras. 13 and 14);
5. the valuation evidence in this case was worthless and there was no evidence that the claimant?s capital exceeded £8,000 from 2 November 1998 to 24 August 1999 (paras. 15 and 16).
The Deputy Commissioner substituted his own decision for that of the tribunal and remitted to the Secretary of State the question of the amount of jobseeker?s allowance to which the claimant was entitled. |
