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.
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."
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.
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
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