Jobseeker's allowance - requirement for capital not to exceed 8,000 - value of two dwellings both used to house applicant's family exempted

Secretary of State for Works and Pensions v Miah: CA (Lords Justice Ward, Mance and Mr Justice Nelson): 25 July 2003

The applicant, a married man, was the father of 12 children.

He purchased two neighbouring, but not adjoining, houses, both of which were used to house his family.

Having been made redundant, he claimed income-based jobseeker's allowance.

He would not be entitled to it if his capital exceeded the prescribed limit of 8,000.

However, in calculating his capital, paragraph 1 of schedule 8 to the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996 (SI 1996/207), permitted 'the dwelling occupied as the home' to be disregarded.

A Social Security Commissioner concluded that the applicant had only one dwelling and was thus not disentitled from receiving the allowance.

The secretary of state appealed.

James Maurici (instructed by the Office of the Solicitor, Department of Works and Pensions) for the secretary of state; Daniel Kolinski (instructed by McGrath & Co, Birmingham) for the applicant.

Held, dismissing the appeal, that the Oxford English Dictionary defined 'dwelling' as including 'place of residence'; that the legislation gave an impression of conveying the function to be served by the concept of a dwelling rather to connote its constituent parts; and that fairness and common sense required both the applicant's two houses to be his 'dwelling occupied as the home' so the combined value of both properties was to be disregarded when calculating the amount of his capital.