Decision Summary Information

Back to Results | Search Again | Most Recent Decisions

Neutral Citation Number:
Reported Number: R(IS)4/97
File Number: CIS 7319 1995
Appellant:
Respondent:
Judge/Commissioner: Judge P. L. Howell Q.C.
Date Of Decision: 28/06/1996
Date Added: 26/07/2002
Main Category: Capital
Main Subcategory: Disregards: home and other premises
Secondary Category:
Secondary Subcategory:
Notes: Income support - claimant attempting to sell farmland - whether taking reasonable steps to dispose of “premises” The tribunal decided that the claimant was not entitled to income support from 6 June 1994 because she and her husband were to be treated as having capital assets worth more than £8,000. Her husband was the legal owner of an acre of land in Jamaica. The land was undeveloped but cultivated by his mother for subsistence purposes. In 1991, for a period of over twelve months, the claimant’s husband had unsuccessfully advertised the land for sale at the price of £30,000. It was not being marketed at the time of the wife’s claim. The tribunal decided that the property could not be disregarded under paragraph 26 of Schedule 10 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987. “Premises” did not include land with no buildings, which was used only for arable purposes. Furthermore, at the time of the claim, the husband was taking no steps to dispose of the land. The claimant appealed on three grounds: (1) the tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the “land” issue, (2) they misconstrued the word “premises”, and (3) they wrongly rejected the argument that the premises fell within paragraph 26 for, at any rate, six months. The representative abandoned the first argument at the oral hearing. Held, allowing the appeal, that: 1. the tribunal had jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s resources which been clearly raised in the correspondence, submissions and evidence before them. It was their function, as far as possible, to give the answers needed to dispose of the case once it came before them (para. 13); 2. the tribunal erred in giving a narrow interpretation to the word “premises”. The Commissioner preferred to follow CSB/222/1986, which after consideration of a number of legal authorities showing that premises could have a wide construction, decided that “any premises” in corresponding supplementary benefit provisions should receive a wide construction. The property to be disregarded included land without buildings, or a mobile home, though not every species of property, as premises had never meant personal chattels, which were dealt with separately under paragraph 10. What was meant by “premises” in the supplementary provisions seemed to be the same question despite differences in wording about reasonable steps to dispose of the premises (paras. 17 and 18: observations in CIS/673/1993 as to “premises” in para. 26 not including “unbuilt-on land” not followed). The Commissioner set aside the decision. He decided that the land did count as “premises” and referred the appeal to a new tribunal to decide whether and to what extent the claimant and her husband were taking steps to try and dispose of the land at the time of the claim, and when they first took “reasonable steps” for the purpose of calculating the allowable period under paragraph 26.
Decision(s) to Download: IS4_97.doc IS4_97.doc