The Court of Appeal case, is a good case.
The test of whether a person needs financial support from a person, is much more liberal than the test of whether they can survive without it.
If a person has a Home, then it is the proceeds of that Home and whether it is required to meet their essential needs, that counts.
A person cannot be told to sell their home to survive. it is what they have as income or savings that will be taken into account and not asset that they could see.
Just like a person cannot be asked why they cannot work to provide for their needs, a person cannot also be asked to see their property or asset.
in the below case, the Respondent lost, not because they had a property worth £80,000, but because they have £55,000 savings that they could survive on, but choose to save it as inheritance for their children.
The court found that those saving can be used for their upkeep but they choose not to use it.