Ellis v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998] 1 FLR 184
Gift of home to daughter; daughter evicted mother; entitlement to benefits
Facts
Ms Ellis gifted her flat to her daughter on the condition that the daughter continued to pay the mortgage instalments, and that Ms Ellis could remain in the flat under her daughter’s care. The daughter evicted her mother and sold the flat. Ms Ellis applied for income support and the Social Security Commissioner determined she was ineligible. Ms Ellis appealed.
Issues
The Commissioner contended the gift of the flat from mother to daughter had failed and, as such, Ms Ellis was entitled to a proportion of the proceeds of sale from the flat. Her capital, therefore, exceeded the threshold specified in the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 Reg.45 thereby rendering her ineligible for income support. Ms Ellis argued the condition that she remain under her daughter’s care was insufficiently certain to be valid, and she could not be said to have an interest in the proceeds of sale from the flat. The condition was void for uncertainty, the gift to the daughter was valid and, therefore, she did not hold the capital assets which would take her over the threshold for claiming income support.
Decision/Outcome
Ms Ellis’ claim failed. The condition was not void for uncertainty, and it was fair to construe it as requiring the daughter to allow her mother to continue to live in the flat, and provide her with a decent standard of living. There was no reason to interfere with the Commissioner’s decision that her share of the proceeds would exceed the threshold and, therefore, Ms Ellis was not entitled to income support.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary accurately reflects the decision in Ellis v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998] 1 FLR 184. The core legal principles discussed — the validity of conditions attached to gifts, certainty of terms, and the capital threshold rules for income support — remain sound as a matter of legal history and case law analysis. However, readers should note that income support itself has been significantly reformed since 1998. The Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 remain on the statute book but income support is being progressively replaced by Universal Credit under the Welfare Reform Act 2012, and the capital rules now fall primarily under the Universal Credit Regulations 2013 for new claimants. The specific capital threshold and regulatory framework described in the article therefore applies to income support as it operated at the time of the decision, and may not reflect the current position for claimants assessed under Universal Credit. The case remains valid as an illustration of how conditions attached to gifts are construed and how beneficial interests affect means-tested benefit entitlement.
