PPR question - forced out on medical grounds

PPR question - forced out on medical grounds

Didn't find your answer?

UK resident client has only ever owned one property, which he occupied as his only residence from acquisition.

He then had an accident that left him hospitalised for 3 years, subsequent to which it was deemed that the property was unsuitable, and a bespoke property with disabled facilities was constructed for him and in which he now resides.  The 3 year period of hospitalisation falls wholly outside of the final 18 months of ownership.  The property has been let out since the 3 year period and will qualify for residential lettings exemption for that period, in addition to standard PPR exemption for the final 18 months and period up to accident.

For the 3 year period of hospitalisation he was physically absent from the original property but all his possessions and furnishings remained there, and his post was delivered there and collected by relatives.

It seems to me that we cannot rely on s.223(3)(a) TCGA 1992 because the condition at s.223(3B)(a) is not satisfied, UNLESS you take the view that the qualify of his occupation of and/or physical absence from the property in the 3 year period was sufficient to amount to residential occupation for the purpose of the primary section, in which case s.223(3)(a) would not be required.

So ... Does he qualify for PPR in the 3 year period of hospitalisation?

He had a girlfriend who lived in the property (rent free) for much of the 3 year period, looking after the place and such.  I doubt that this is relevant?

Thanks

With kind regards

Clint Westwood

Replies (7)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
15th Jan 2017 13:32

If I am in hospital for 3 weeks, my residence remains my residence. I am not residing elsewhere, and I expect to return there (and sh*g my live in toy boy when I get there) until such time as I am told that I cannot.

I do not see that it makes a whole lot of difference if the period is 3 years, rather than 3 weeks. My opinion of course. Alternative opinions are available.

Lord Dennings words taken from CG64455 may be of some assistance:

"If he happens to be away for a holiday or away for the weekend OR IN HOSPITAL, he does not lose his residence on that account."

Thanks (1)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By nogammonsinanundoubledgame
15th Jan 2017 13:42

Thank you both (and any later contributors yet to surface) - Particularly for the reference.

If I were an uncharitable Inspector, I might make the point that there is a qualitative difference between 3 weeks and 3 years. After all, in the reverse scenario HMRC have had some success in recent court cases that presence for 3 weeks does not establish PPR, where 3 years would not be questioned.

But as Paul points out, provided that there is an arguable case and disclosure is adequate, it has to be worth a shot.

With kind regards

Clint Westwood

Thanks (0)
Replying to nogammonsinanundoubledgame:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
15th Jan 2017 14:05

Apologies. I double-clicked the post button.

Thanks (0)
Replying to nogammonsinanundoubledgame:
Portia profile image
By Portia Nina Levin
15th Jan 2017 14:06

Yes, but in the case of Morgan, he took the decision to let the property a mere 10 days after moving in, and it was accepted that this two month's or so worth of occupation was occupation as a residence, based no his intentions during those first 10 days.

I would consider there to only be an absence from the residence when one is residing elsewhere.

One simply does not reside in a hospital.

If the intention throughout was to return to the residence that he was maintaining at the end of his stay in hospital, I do not see that the length of stay makes any difference.

Again, I am merely offering opinion to assist. I do not disagree with Paul at all.

Thanks (1)
Replying to Portia Nina Levin:
avatar
By nogammonsinanundoubledgame
15th Jan 2017 16:22

Thanks. I was not disagreeing with you. Just trying to ensure that I had all of the arguments both for and against. No surprises, is my intention.

I am not convinced that everyone must have a residence. So the argument that he cannot have lost residential status in his property *because* he has not adopted residential status in the hospital is a weak one, I feel. Also, Denning's example was of someone who spent just a weekend in hospital, so it could possibly be stretching a point to extend it to 3 years. Anyway, I am going to try it on and see.

Thanks (0)
By Paul D Utherone
15th Jan 2017 13:26

Take a view, considering the points PNL makes, and set out the basis of the claim in a white space note with a view to shutting off a later discovery out of normal time limits

Thanks (1)
avatar
By Accountant A
15th Jan 2017 14:48

I'd have said yes. Can he be said to have made the hospital his residence? I'd say not. It wouldn't be critical, of course, but I don't think anyone would make that argument if it was a 3 month stay in hospital

Did the partner claim single person discount for Council Tax during the 3 years? (Presumably a different set of rules but might demonstrate a degree of consistency if not.)

PS I should improve my thinking and typing speed

Thanks (0)