Ewens v Secretary Of State For Social Security

For entitlement to mortgage-interest support under paragraph 7(7) of Schedule 3 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987, the relevant dwelling is the dwelling occupied as the claimant’s home during the period of claim. The loan need not have been obtained, or secured on the dwelling, during a period of joint occupation by the claimant and former partner. Nor does the provision impose a general requirement that the claimant must have remained in continuous occupation from the time the former partner left. It is sufficient that the former partner had lived in and left the dwelling, or had died, that the claimant occupied it as her home during the relevant week, and that she had to meet the interest in order to continue living there.

The appellant claimed income support in respect of interest on several bank loans secured on a former matrimonial home. She and her husband had previously lived in the property, moved elsewhere to run a public house, separated, and she later returned to occupy the property as her home.

The Social Security Commissioner rejected the claim. He considered that the relevant loans had to be secured while the property was occupied as a joint home and that the claimant had to show continuity of occupation after her husband left. The appeal concerned the proper interpretation of paragraph 7(7) of Schedule 3 to the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987.

1. Appeal allowed. The issue of calculating the income support payable was remitted to the Secretary of State.
2. The expression the dwelling occupied as the home in paragraph 7(7) had its defined meaning under regulation 2. It referred to the dwelling normally occupied by the claimant as her home during the relevant period. The court rejected an interpretation which treated it as referring to a former jointly occupied matrimonial home.
3. Paragraph 7(7) did not require the relevant loan to have been obtained or secured during a past period of joint occupation. The general scheme of the Regulations looked to the position in each week for which benefit was claimed. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Schedule 3 supported that construction: responsibility for the expenditure arose where the claimant had to meet it in order to continue living in the dwelling then occupied as her home.
4. Nor did paragraph 7(7) impose a general requirement of continuity of occupation from the time when the former partner left until the claim. The provision required that the former partner had lived in and left the dwelling, or had died, and that the claimant was living there during the relevant week. The court expressed no concluded view on whether the former partner must previously have lived there with the claimant.
5. Those requirements were satisfied. The loans were secured on the property; the former husband had lived there and left before the claims; he was not meeting the interest; and the appellant had to meet it to continue living there as her home.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the decision of Social Security Commissioner H. Levenson dated 8 December 1999. Appeal allowed and the calculation issue remitted to the Secretary of State.