TC09585 - [2025] UKFTT 00867 (TC)

Fecha: 15-Jul-2025

we have reached the following relevant findings of fact for the purposes of this decision

we have reached the following relevant findings of fact for the purposes of this decision.

The reason for the Appellant’s residence in his parent’s home

64.

Relevant finding – we find that, ever since his father first became ill in 2007, which, by definition, includes the whole of the period in which he owned the Properties, the Appellant was provided with living accommodation in his parent’s home solely because he was caring for his father.

65.

Reasons – in reaching this conclusion, we recognise (and have taken into account) the fact that:

(1)

the Appellant had been provided with living accommodation in his parent’s home before he started caring for his father in 2007;

(2)

the FTT in the FTT Decision at paragraph [93] found as a primary fact that the Appellant’s parents would not have required the Appellant to leave their home if he had had nowhere else to reside and Mrs Campbell, in her oral evidence before us, testified to precisely the same effect; and

(3)

the Appellant’s parents were content to allow the Appellant’s brother to live in their home even though his brother was not providing care to his father.

66.

However, the evidence of Mrs Campbell on this question was clear.

67.

She said that the closeness between the Appellant and his father and the fact that the Appellant’s brother was permitted to live in their home did not mean that family ties were the reason why the Appellant had been provided with accommodation in their home after 2007. The Appellant’s situation was very different from that of his brother who, because of his financial status and mental health issues, was incapable of living away from their home. In contrast, the Appellant was perfectly capable of doing so and had the means to do so because of his qualification as a mechanical engineer. Mrs Campbell said that, after her husband became ill, had the Appellant not been required to live in her home in order to care for her husband, she would have wanted him to have his own home and he would have moved out.

68.

We therefore conclude that, during the period in which the Appellant owned the Properties, the Appellant would not have been provided with living accommodation in his parent’s home had he not been providing care to his father. We would add that this conclusion is entirely consistent with part 2 clause 1;2 of the employment contract, which specified that employment accommodation would be provided free of charge “due to the high level of care needed for [the Appellant’s father]”.