TC09585 - [2025] UKFTT 00867 (TC)

Relevant finding – we find that the Appellant could not have carried out all of his caring responsibilities for his father unless he had living accommodation in his parent’s home.

Reasons – we base this conclusion on the terms of the medical evidence and the testimony of the Appellant and Mrs Campbell. It is clear from that evidence that the Appellant’s caring responsibilities were considerable, albeit highly unpredictable in terms of timing. The nature and extent of the Appellant’s responsibilities at any time depended on how the Appellant’s father was doing at that time and the extent to which Mrs Campbell was able to care for her husband herself. However, when those caring responsibilities are viewed as a whole, we consider that the Appellant would not have been able to carry out all of them without being able to live in his parent’s home.

The conclusion we have reached above is not gainsaid by the fact that:

As regards the first of these, the mere fact that the Appellant decided to buy a Property in which to live at those times when his caring responsibilities under the employment contract allowed him to do so does not mean that he was not required to live in his parent’s home in order to carry out those responsibilities as a whole. Those responsibilities did not take up all of his time and some of the responsibilities could be performed when he was not living in his parent’s home. However, the mere fact that the Appellant was able to live in an alternative location for some of the time despite the existence of those responsibilities does not mean that there were no times when the Appellant’s responsibilities required him to live in his parent’s home. To pick up an analogy that was mentioned at the hearing, just as a housemaster at a boarding school who is necessarily required to live on the school premises when he is on duty can live in alternative accommodation when he is not performing his duties (such as during school holidays), so too the Appellant could necessarily be required to live in his parent’s home when he was carrying out some of his caring responsibilities but able to live in alternative accommodation either when he was performing other caring responsibilities or not performing caring responsibilities at all.

As regards the second of these, the mere fact that the Appellant was able to carry out some of his caring responsibilities under the employment contract by being on call at a Property located nearby did not mean that his caring responsibilities under the employment contract, when viewed as a whole, did not require him to have accommodation in his parent’s home. The critical question to ask is whether the Appellant would have been able to carry out all of his caring responsibilities under the employment contract whilst living away from his parent’s home and, in our opinion, it is clear from the evidence that he would not have been able to do so.

As regards the third of these, we do not think that the overall quantum of the hours for which the Appellant was paid under the employment contract is determinative of this question given the evidence which has been presented to us in relation to the nature and timing of the work which he was required to provide. This was not a case where the Appellant could “clock on” for a working shift with any sort of regularity like a hospital worker or a security guard. Instead, he needed to be available on short notice and on an ongoing basis to carry out his duties.

In short, the situation here was very different from that applicable to a night shift worker who lives away from his or her place of employment but works in that place of employment through the night. The evidence makes it clear that, whilst certain duties of the employment could be carried out when the Appellant was living away from his parent’s home, he could not carry out all the duties of his employment on that basis.

We therefore conclude that the Appellant could not have carried out his caring responsibilities under the employment contract without having living accommodation in his parent’s home. We would add that this conclusion is entirely consistent with part 2 clause 1;2 of the employment contract, which specified that the provision of the accommodation in his parent’s home was “necessary in this type of employment when providing such high levels of care and flexibility for a patient needing 24 hour support and supervision”.