CHAPTER 10: THE HOUSEHOLD MEANS TEST: (2) OTHER RESOURCES The main policy decisions on the treatment

of household resources other than earnings were made in 1934, subsequent changes being of relatively minor importance. This chapter, therefore, covers the whole period up to 1940. The policies adopted by the board on many of these questions were of limited importance at the time, in view of the small number of cases affected, but, like many other detailed policy questions decided by the board in its early days, they were to affect much larger numbers in later years. Statutory disregards: the war pensioners lobby The provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act regarding resources other than earnings were mainly carried over from the Transitional Payments (Determination of Need) Act 1932 and earlier poor law legislation, the origins of which are described in chapter 1. Thus, the first 5s. per week of sick pay from a friendly society, the first 7s.6d. of national health insurance benefit and at least part of any war wounds or disability pension or workmens compensation payment were to be disregarded, whether received by the applicant or by another member of the household. The treatment of capital resources was also taken over from the 1932 Act. The one change made during the passage of the 1934 Act concerned the treatment of war pensions: instead of only half, the whole of the pension was to be disregarded up to a maximum of 1 per week. Since the highest pension payable to a private, for 100 per cent disability, was 2 a week, and most disabilities were assessed at 35 per cent or less, the 1 disregard was markedly more generous. It resulted from persistent pressure by the British Legion for an extension of the concession granted in 1932. The Ministry of Labour was at first reluctant to yield to such pressure. The 1932 Act, Reid complained, had struck at the root principle of all public relief, namely, that the community helps only those who cannot help themselves. If a further concession was needed, he suggested, it might take the form of a disregard of 8s. per week (the rate of pension for 20 per cent disablement) or half the pension, whichever was greater, on the grounds that pensions for minor disabilities could be regarded as compensation rather than maintenance payments. Eady believed this would satisfy the pensioners parliamentary champion, Captain Ian Fraser, but the Ministry of Pensions, directly responsible for war pensions, regarded it as a dangerous precedent which could lead to demands for the whole pension to be disregarded, and warned against over-estimating the importance of the British Legion, whose 300,000 membership, out of a total of 4.5 million ex-service men, was very largely made up of small local clubs which have secured a licence to sell liquor. Fraser, under pressure to raise the stakes, tabled amendments to the Unemployment Bill, first for a minimum disregard of 12s., then raising the figure to 1 in line with the British Legions demand (its
1 2

10/1

Scottish branch wanted the whole disability pension disregarded). On Eadys advice, the 1 disregard was conceded to dispose of the matter once and for all. The case for disregarding payments made as compensation for disability applied equally to workmens compensation payments, which had been treated in the same way as war pensions by the 1932 Act, but Eady now argued that there was no true analogy and the 1 disregard was not extended to workmens compensation, the existing disregard of one-half being retained. The policy of equal treatment of war and industrial disablement pensions was later to be restored by the National Assistance Act 1948.
3

Non-statutory disregards: the one-third rule The treatment of a wide range of other types of income was discussed by the board in September 1934. Some preliminary conclusions were reached, but the following week the officials reported that the difficulties had proved greater than expected. They proposed, therefore, that the amounts to be allowed for personal requirements should not be stated in the regulations but should be such amounts as seemed reasonable in the circumstances. When a draft of the regulations was submitted to Stanley, he complained that this was too vague and a minimum allowance of a third of the amount by which the income exceeded the needs of the recipient and his or her dependants was inserted. Thus, if members of the household had income, other than earnings, not covered by the statutory disregards, they would be allowed to retain an amount to meet their own needs, assessed according to the boards scale, plus one-third of any excess.
4 5

The one-third rule did not apply to income received by the applicant; indeed, the 1934 regulations did not provide for any part of the applicants own income, other than earnings and the statutory disregards, to be ignored. The omission was remedied in the 1936 regulations, under which a reasonable amount of the applicants own income could be allowed for personal requirements, but without any minimum. Apart from earnings and the statutory disregards, therefore, the treatment of resources was to remain largely discretionary. The remaining sections of this chapter are mainly concerned with the way in which discretion was exercised. Unemployment insurance Since the fundamental purpose of unemployment assistance allowances was to replace or supplement unemployment insurance benefit, it would have been illogical for the board to disregard any part of the benefit paid to the applicant or to the applicants wife or husband. If another member of the household was receiving unemployment benefit, however, the case for a partial disregard was stronger. At a board meeting in October 1934, Betterton advanced three arguments in
10/2

support of a disregard: that part of the benefit was needed to meet the expense of seeking work, that it was important to avoid impairing the attractiveness of unemployment benefit, and that benefit was something for which the claimant has in part paid. The board was impressed mainly by the second of these arguments. The Treasury found the case for a disregard less convincing: Gilbert commented that it rested entirely on sentiment, but nevertheless admitted that it was perhaps in some ways strong. At the boards next meeting it was agreed in principle that part of the benefit should be allowed for personal requirements. Shortly after, the one-third rule explained above was adopted. When the revised regulations came into force in November 1936, the board used its discretion to treat unemployment benefit more generously. If the recipient was the applicants parent, child, or brother or sister without dependants, the allowance for personal requirements was to be a half instead of a third of the excess over his or her scale rate. If the relationship was less close, the whole of the excess was to be ignored.
6 7 8 9

Trade union benefit Different considerations applied to unemployment benefit paid by trade unions out of their own funds. Such payments, particularly by the larger unions, were common. The rates laid down in union rule books were generally between 5s. and 20s. a week, but many unions had been forced to cut their benefits. The duration of benefit varied between ten and twenty-six weeks, which meant that most of the boards applicants would have exhausted their entitlement, but other members of their households might still qualify. The situation was complicated by the arrangement under which unions with benefit schemes of their own could take over responsibility for paying state unemployment benefit to their members. The purpose of this arrangement, introduced under the National Insurance Act 1911 at the start of the state scheme, was to preserve and encourage voluntary schemes. The unions concerned, therefore, strongly objected to their members having their union benefits effectively confiscated by the board.
10

Trade union benefit was covered by the one-third rule but in March 1935 the TUC asked for a total disregard of superannuation, accident and unemployment benefits, and both the TUC and individual unions continued to demand at least a partial disregard of benefits payable to applicants as well as to members of their households. Towards the end of 1937, their persistence paid off when the board decided, first, that the whole of a non-dependants trade union benefit should be allowed for his or her personal requirements and then, the day after Rushcliffe had received a TUC deputation on the subject, that the first 5s. per week paid to the applicant or to the applicants spouse should be disregarded. The numbers affected by the latter decision, Eady told board members, would be small and the cost negligible.
11 12 13

Voluntary payments

10/3

The board at first paid little attention to the question of voluntary payments from friends, relatives or charitable bodies. A memorandum discussed by the board in September 1934 referred to other casual receipts, noting that it was doubtful whether in many cases they would come to the boards notice. If they did, it was suggested, sums of the order of 5s. a month could be disregarded. The board agreed, but the initial instructions made no explicit reference to such payments. If received by non-dependent members of the household, they were covered by the one-third rule.
14

At the beginning of 1935 the question arose in a particularly sensitive context. The Gresford Colliery Relief Fund had been set up for victims of the recent Gresford disaster and their families. The Wrexham (North Wales) district officer reported that men out of work as a result of the closure of the mine were getting weekly payments of 6s. for a single man, 8s. for a married man and 3s. per child from the fund, which the local authorities had ignored in assessing transitional payments. The payments were expected to cease at the end of the month and it was agreed that the boards officers should ignore them. The payments, however, turned out to be more numerous, of longer duration and, in some cases, considerably larger than expected. At the beginning of March, it was reported that about 65 of the boards applicants were receiving them and those aged 16-18 were getting 11s. per week instead of 6s. to compensate for the fact that they were too young to qualify for adult rates of unemployment benefit. As the Gresford miners exhausted their unemployment benefit entitlement, the number of cases dealt with by the board increased rapidly. By August 1935, about 550 applicants were receiving payments from the fund. At that point the relief fund committee decided to discontinue payments to miners whose need was due solely to unemployment, but payments to men injured in the disaster and to the relatives of those who had died continued and there were complaints that in some cases the boards officers were taking these payments into account.
15 16 17 18 19

Gresford was a special case but it illustrated the difficulties the board faced in dealing with voluntary payments. Charitable help to the unemployed might be discouraged if it resulted in the intended beneficiaries getting less help from the board. The issue was raised in more general terms in January 1935, when the Society of Friends asked whether they could make small allowances to their members to bring them up to a standard which we think desirable without the boards allowances being reduced. Eady replied:
20

The Board does not feel ... that it is required to follow a policy which says that a man receiving an allowance from the Board shall not receive anything from anyone else, or which would make it impossible, for example, to improve the position of a person who is in receipt of an allowance ... If the Society made a small grant to meet additional requirements, therefore, it would not lead to a reduction in the boards allowance. Eadys letter formed the basis of an instruction on the treatment of
21

10/4

voluntary payments generally, whether from a charitable body or not. The first 5s. per week of payments to the applicant or his dependants were to be treated as for special needs and disregarded. If the payments exceeded 10s. per week, the case was to be referred to headquarters. Voluntary payments to other members of the household were to be treated as for their personal requirements and thus wholly disregarded, no upper limit being suggested.
22

These instructions were further modified in April 1937. Where an applicants rent was too high to be met in full by the board, officers were authorised to disregard voluntary payments to the extent of the unmet rent. In addition, the 5s. disregard was to be increased to half the amount of the voluntary payments if they exceeded 10s. per week, with discretion to disregard entirely payments of up to 10s. for special needs such as arise out of old age or reduced circumstances, or where the obligation to make the payment was extremely slight.
23

The overall effect of the instructions was that most voluntary payments, whether to applicants themselves or to members of their households, were entirely disregarded. The cost to public funds was probably small in comparison with the benefit both to the applicants concerned and to the boards reputation. Maintenance payments In chapter 25 we show how the board used its discretionary powers to enable absent husbands and fathers to meet their obligations and the problems that this involved. Here, we are concerned with the treatment of maintenance payments in the hands of the recipients. Where payments were made to a member of the household, the one-third rule applied: the recipient was allowed to retain at least a third of the amount by which they exceeded her own needs and those of her children. Under an instruction issued in February 1935, payments under an affiliation order were to be treated as solely for the benefit of the child, even if they exceeded the childs scale rate.
24

Maintenance payments received by the applicant or his or her spouse were at first taken into account in full, but under the 1936 regulations a partial disregard was possible. The April 1937 circular on voluntary payments drew a distinction between husbands or fathers who were absent for short periods (the intermittent class) and those who seldom or never returned to the household (the permanent class). A payment by a temporarily absent husband was to be taken into account in full. If the absence was permanent, a discretionary disregard of up to 5s. a week was authorised, giving separated husbands a modest incentive to make such payments. The same rule was to apply to voluntary payments by absent sons and daughters.
25

Pensions Pensions of all kinds, other than war disability pensions, were covered by the one-third rule if payable to non-dependent members of the
10/5

household. They included both the state old age pension and pensions from employers and trade union superannuation schemes, as well as service dependants pensions which are discussed separately below. Special protection was given to the old age pension which, at 10s. per week, could exceed the pensioners scale rate under the 1934 regulations by up to 3s. If the pensioners income consisted solely of the old age pension, the whole of it was allocated to his or her own needs, in line with the practice of public assistance authorities.
26

Under the 1936 regulations, a more generous rule was adopted for pensions other than the old age pension, one-third being allowed for personal requirements, in addition to the scale rate, provided this did not result in the pension being treated more generously than earnings of the same amount. The instructions gave two examples. In the first, the pensioner was the applicants brother, with a pension of 20s. per week of which 16s.8d. was allowed for personal requirements, leaving 3s.4d. to be set against the applicants needs. In the second example, the applicants father had a pension of 40s., of which 32s. was allowed for personal requirements (the amount allowed under the earnings rule) and 8s. set against the applicants needs.
27

In the less common situation where the applicant himself was in receipt of a pension, it was at first taken fully into account. This caused resentment, especially where the pension was financed, at least in part, by the pensioners past contributions. The Amalgamated Engineering Union was reported to be discouraging its members from claiming superannuation benefit while receiving an allowance from the board. The situation was eased by the 1936 instructions, under which 5s. per week of an applicants pension was to be disregarded, in line with the treatment of voluntary payments. A further relaxation was made in April 1937: as with other voluntary payments, where a pension over 10s. a week was paid by an employer on a voluntary basis, half of it was to be disregarded.
28 29

Service dependants pensions The treatment of pensions paid to relatives of men killed in the 1914-18 war was a particularly sensitive question, not only because of the circumstances in which they were payable but also because of their relatively high value. When the question was discussed in September 1934, Reynard strongly objected to any part of the pension being regarded as available for the needs of other members of the household. The boards initial instructions, however, did not provide for any specific disregard beyond the one-third rule.
30

At the beginning of May 1935, the Newport, Monmouthshire, district office drew attention to two cases to be heard by the Ebbw Vale appeal tribunal, one of which was described as particularly hard: an 80-yearold woman with a 10s. old age pension and an 18s. service dependants pension, living with her unemployed son aged 47 and a daughter aged 49 suffering from tuberculosis. As her needs were assessed at only 8s. a week, she was assumed to be contributing two-thirds of the remainder
10/6

of her income, or 13s.4d. a week, towards the needs of the household, leaving her son with an allowance from the board of only 12s. The appeal tribunal reversed this decision, treating both pensions as available only for the mothers needs, thus more than doubling the sons allowance. The feeling among officials in the district was in favour of generosity and the headquarters official concerned agreed that there were grounds for paying the son more than 12s., but no change was made in the instructions at that stage.
31 32

The question was raised again in March 1936. The mother of a 29-yearold unemployed man had a service dependants pension of 26s.8d. out of which she was assumed to contribute 7s.8d. towards her sons needs, reducing his allowance from 10s. to 2s.6d. a week. Reid advised that the 10s. allowance should be paid in full and any similar cases should be referred to the district officer to decide what would be reasonable. The instructions issued later that year reflected this view: the whole of the pension was to be retained by the recipient unless it was over 30s. a week, in which case the question would be referred to the district office. Where the applicant or a dependant was the pensioner, the normal pension disregard of 5s. was to apply.
33 34 35

Forces reserve pay Payments to members of the army, navy and air force reserves were another example of extraneous considerations overriding the principle of the means test. As the international situation worsened, the board came under increasing pressure to refrain from any action which would discourage recruitment. From the start reserve pay was given special treatment. Men recruited since January 1931 were paid 3 6s. per quarter for service in the reserves, and half this amount was allowed for personal requirements, whether it was received by the applicant or a member of the household. The other half was deducted from the boards allowance for one or more weeks. Under the 1936 regulations, the board offered a further concession: reserve pay received by a member of the household other than the applicant would be entirely disregarded. But the service departments, short of recruits, now demanded similar treatment for reserve pay received by applicants themselves. Eadys response was that this could not be done without a political decision by the cabinet. The most he could offer was a more generous approach in individual cases, for instance treating the payments as weekly income spread over the following quarter and perhaps awarding discretionary additions to offset the weekly income in some cases; but it would have to be done without publicity. The offer did not satisfy the War Office, since an unpublicised concession would do nothing to help recruitment.
36 37 38

The boards officials privately conceded that reserve pay was not intended for maintenance and was often used for expenses such as the replacement of clothing, and that it was difficult to justify treating it less favourably than servicemens pensions, which were intended for maintenance and of which the first 5s. per week (roughly what
10/7

reservists recruited since 1931 were paid) was disregarded. The board, therefore, offered to disregard both the basic reserve pay of 9d. a day and the extra 6d. a day paid to Class A reservists (a small minority, liable to be called up at any time) and this offer was accepted. Pre1931 reservists, paid 1s. a day, would still have part of their pay taken into account, but this did not affect new recruits.
39

Education maintenance allowances Maintenance grants were awarded by most local education authorities, mainly to enable children over 14 to pursue courses of secondary and technical education. The board at first proposed to treat the grant as covering both normal maintenance and extra educational expenses. Under pressure from the Board of Education, however, it was agreed that if the grant did not exceed 15 a year (about 6s. a week), it would be treated as being for education costs only and disregarded by the board. If the grant was more than 15 or was for a young person at college or university, the case would be referred to the district officer who might decide that part of it was intended for the childs maintenance, resulting in a reduction of the parents allowance.
40 41

In January 1939 the Rhondda education committee in South Wales complained about the treatment of cases where scholarships of 40 per annum had been awarded to university students, which the board had taken to include an element for the students maintenance. An estimate supplied by the principal of University College, Cardiff, put the cost of books, clothes and pocket money for a student living at home at 44 10s. a year, and the Board of Education confirmed that local authority scholarships were not intended to cover full maintenance costs. It was therefore decided that university scholarships, like school maintenance grants, would be regarded as covering only the additional expenses connected with the course and that the student would continue to be treated as a dependant of his or her unemployed parent.
42 43 44 45

School meals Under the Education Act 1921, local education authorities could provide free school meals to elementary school children who were unable through lack of food to take advantage of the education provided for them and whose parents could not afford to pay. The cost was divided equally between central and local government. Scottish education authorities had similar powers and were obliged to use them. In practice, the basis on which children were selected for free meals varied from area to area. Some local authorities relied on medical evidence while others, including some of the largest authorities such as London, Birmingham, Manchester and Lancashire, awarded free meals wholly or mainly on the basis of low income.
46

In November 1933 the Board of Education suggested that the UAB ought to bear the cost of school meals for its applicants children, as
10/8

some public assistance authorities had done in the past. That suggestion was eventually rejected, mainly on grounds of cost: far more free meals would be provided if the whole cost, instead of only half, were to be borne by central government. It remained for the board to decide to what extent free school meals should be treated as part of the household income. Since the allowances for children in the boards scale were intended to cover the cost of food, it did not seem reasonable to ignore them entirely, especially where a local authority provided more than one meal a day (Sheffield and Abertillery provided three meals a day and Jarrow, Ebbw Vale and West Ham provided two ). The policy adopted by the board, however, was generous enough to ensure that in most cases the value of school meals was disregarded and that, where it was not, the effect on the boards allowances was small. No deduction was made if the family did not receive more than two meals a day - one meal for two children or two meals for one child. For larger numbers of meals, a deduction was made of about 1d. per meal; but meals provided on the basis of a doctors certificate that the child was suffering from a specific pathological condition and required extra nourishment were also ignored. The Board of Education accepted this policy as reasonable, though with some misgivings regarding the practical difficulty of distinguishing between children suffering from a specific pathological condition and those who were simply undernourished. In April 1935, an additional instruction was issued to the effect that meals provided in special schools for physically and mentally handicapped children were to be disregarded.
47 48 49 50 51

Despite the relatively small number and size of the deductions made, there were allegations of children being withdrawn from school meals in some areas as a result of the boards policy. In Jarrow there was said to have been a marked decline in the number of children receiving free meals, which the school inspector ascribed to the boards deductions, and there were similar complaints from other areas. The boards enquiries, however, revealed very few such cases. There was, on the other hand, some evidence of local authorities, including the London County Council, withholding free school meals from families receiving allowances from the board on the grounds that the board was responsible for meeting their needs. In a representative sample of school children in applicants households, only 8 per cent were receiving free milk and food and 5 per cent were receiving free food without milk, but these figures do not necessarily indicate discrimination against the boards clients, many of whose children would not have qualified for free meals on grounds of educational need.
52 53 54 55

The real concern of officials at the Board of Education was that local authorities should be encouraged to provide meals on medical rather than economic grounds: it was not the Authoritys business to relieve poverty as such but to feed children who are under-nourished and therefore failing to profit fully by their education. In May 1935 they suggested that the UAB should support this policy by disregarding all meals provided on medical grounds, rather than only those where there was a specific pathological condition. Hancock agreed on the boards
56

10/9

behalf that it would consider doing so, despite the fact that it would give a financial advantage to feckless parents whose children were underfed; but the Board of Education then decided that the administrative difficulties of distinguishing between children selected on medical and financial grounds were too great and suggested instead that the UAB should ignore the value of school meals altogether. In November 1935 the board decided to do so on the introduction of the new regulations the following year. From November 1936, therefore, free school meals were wholly disregarded.
57 58 59

The issue was raised again in 1939. In response to a demand by the Childrens Minimum Council that all children in families below a certain income level should get free school meals, the parliamentary secretary to the Board of Education, Kenneth Lindsay, pointed out that the UAB would be bound to take it into account and therefore the families would not be any better off. Reid, however, objected to the UAB being held up as being the villains of the piece. The board had already conceded that meals given on specific medical grounds ought to be ignored. They were unlikely to go back on this by taking all meals into account; and even if they decided to take them into account to a limited extent, it would arouse criticism of such a character that we should find ourselves bound in the event to give way. The Board of Education conceded the point and when, some years later, free school meals were made available generally on grounds of low income, they continued to be wholly disregarded by the Assistance Board.
60 61 62 63

Capital The rules regarding capital resources adopted in 1932 for transitional payments were re-enacted in the Unemployment Assistance Act: the value of the home and the first 25 of other capital were to be disregarded, and every complete 25 between 25 and 300 was to be treated as producing an income of 1s. per week (an annual rate of interest of 10.4 per cent). The act did not say how capital in excess of 300 was to be treated, but the guidance issued to public assistance authorities in 1932 was that the applicant would only in very exceptional circumstances be able to prove that he was in need, and the board adopted a similar policy. The regulations provided for more generous treatment of capital belonging to members of the household other than the applicant or the applicants wife, husband or parent: the 300 limit was raised to 400, and only the actual income derived from the capital was taken into account.
64 65

The number of applicants with capital resources was small. We do not know how many were refused assistance on these grounds, but it was estimated that at the end of 1937, of about 570,000 applicants actually receiving allowances, only some 12,500 had capital resources of their own or their wives or husbands, other than their homes, the average amount being about 100. The number of other household members possessing capital was even smaller: about 1,280 parents and 1,780 others.
66

10/10

Despite the small numbers, some types of capital were problematic; in particular, there were complaints about the treatment of lump sum payments of workmens compensation. While half of any weekly workmens compensation payments were to be disregarded, the statutory disregard did not apply to lump sum payments. The boards legal adviser, Stuart King, suggested a way around the difficulty. The rules on the treatment of capital applied only to money and investments treated as capital assets. If the board were to treat a lump sum workmens compensation payment as income rather than capital, part of it could be allowed for personal requirements. This rather strange and artificial argument (as Reid put it) was used to justify disregarding half the payment.
67 68 69

A few cases arose where a member of the household owned house property other than the home. Its value was generally ignored at least for a short time to enable the owner to dispose of it. In some cases it was accepted that there were good reasons for retaining the property and only the income derived from it was taken into account.
70

Another type of assets which did not fit comfortably into the normal rules were endowment assurance policies. If an income was assumed based on the policys capital value, the policy holder might be compelled to surrender it. One of the boards regional officers, W L Addeyman, argued that, since the board did not make any allowance for insurance premiums, they should disregard the capital value. This somewhat dubious argument (it could equally have been applied to any other regular form of savings) was accepted as reasonable, provided that the policy was not of very high value. But a different view was taken of a 300 endowment policy purchased out of money won on a football pool by an unemployed miner who, one of the boards officials wrote, does not appear very deserving.
71 72 73

The possibility of distinguishing between savings resulting from personal thrift and money obtained in other ways was discussed in a memorandum by Stuart King in July 1934, but it was hard to see where the line could be drawn. Kings conclusion, which the board accepted, was that the question was best left to be decided in each case, subject to general guidance. The boards initial instructions included a section on the distinction between capital assets and income. Money saved over a period, received as a bequest or invested in stocks, shares or house property was to be treated as capital. Occasional charitable gifts and co-op dividends were also to be treated as capital, provided that the board was not exposed to criticism for paying public money to a man who at the same time is spending considerable sums on nonessentials. Lump sum payments representing arrears of income, on the other hand, were to be treated as income, spread over the number of weeks in respect of which the arrears were payable.
74 75

If an applicant who had received a lump sum proceeded to spend it, his weekly allowance might be affected in two ways. The first, referred to at a meeting of district officers in April 1936, was that the money could be treated as income available to meet current needs; the second, that he
76

10/11

could be treated as being still in possession of at least part of the money that had been spent. This was done in a number of cases reported in 1937 and 1938 where a lump sum compensation payment was considered to have been misspent. In most of these cases the mere fact that the money had been spent seems to have been taken as evidence of misspending, but in one case reported by the Cardiff district office where a 500 payment had been reduced to 72 in eleven months the applicant was said to have made a statement that he travelled to Bath every week end to visit his young lady, and spent the money on having a good time, drinking, etc.
77

Reinventing the dole: a history of the Unemployment Assistance Board 1934-1940 by Tony Lynes is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.

10/12