who owns the house?

Errata · 27 March 2008 at 3:54PM

virgin_moneysaver wrote: »

but why are private patients being forced to pay more than council patients when they get the same care

Local Authorities can negotiate block bookings with care homes, giving them guaranteed income stream and so they can gain a discount. Something that individuals can't do. Local Authorities have a duty to purchase goods and services from commercial organisations on the most favourable financial terms they can acheive.

bryanb · 27 March 2008 at 5:11PM

Because the council can "bulk buy" therefore forcing the price down. It is a common practice, the supermarkets do it all the time.

bryanb · 27 March 2008 at 5:19PM

Are you saying that 'the children', who own half the house, are living in it and are at risk of being made homeless? Or are you saying that children have own homes, mum no longer needs her house because she's living in a care home. [/quote]

In either case provided the "children" legally own their half of the property, ie named on the deeds. Their half cannot be sold to fund care.
If any close relative of the mother is living in the house (aged 60+ with no other accomodation available) the complete property may be ignored when local authority assesses payment of care fees. Note "may be"

whatatwit · 27 March 2008 at 7:56PM

Refering to the query about a 'council funded' patient paying less than a 'private funded' patient, our local authority sets a limit as to how much they will pay for an individual who requires care. If the relatives choose a care home that charges more per week than the council limit, it is up to the relatives to 'top up' to meet the fee.
If an expensive home has a vacancy and the council has a patient then the home has a take it or leave it choice.

Do local authorities still put a charge on assets such as properties if fees are due but there is no cash left to pay?

Strapped · 27 March 2008 at 8:56PM

bryanb wrote: »

Are you saying that 'the children', who own half the house, are living in it and are at risk of being made homeless? Or are you saying that children have own homes, mum no longer needs her house because she's living in a care home.

In either case provided the "children" legally own their half of the property, ie named on the deeds. Their half cannot be sold to fund care.
If any close relative of the mother is living in the house (aged 60+ with no other accomodation available) the complete property may be ignored when local authority assesses payment of care fees. Note "may be"

My family had a similar situation, although it was actually the "child" who ended up needing nursing care after a severe stroke. We were worried about the fact that he owned half a house, but it was disregarded as his mother lived in it; after she passed away recently, and her half passed to another sibling, this still didn't change.

redflame705 · 27 March 2008 at 11:43PM

whatatwit wrote: »

Do local authorities still put a charge on assets such as properties if fees are due but there is no cash left to pay?

Yes, they can.

Savvy_Sue · 28 March 2008 at 2:28AM

MOVING THREADS FOR BETTER RESPONSES

Hi, Martin’s asked me to post this in these circumstances: I’ve asked Board Guides to move threads if they’ll receive a better response elsewhere (please see this rule) so this post/thread has been moved to the Silver Savers board, where it should get more replies. If you have any questions about this policy please email [EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com"]abuse@moneysavingexpert.com[/EMAIL].

soolin · 28 March 2008 at 9:44AM

Mojisola wrote: »

This is another issue - but your Mother's friend should make sure that her Mother isn't paying too much.

This is from www.alzheimers.org.uk/factsheet/452 -

"People with dementia living in nursing homes should have their nursing care provided free of charge by the NHS; this is known as the registered nursing care contribution (RNCC)"

Please note this only applies to nursing homes. My father has vascular dementia (very similair to Alzheimers) but is in a specialist dementia care home and gets no assistance as there is no nursing element. My father while obviously not able to look after himself at all, only needs 'care' not nursing.

sloughflint · 28 March 2008 at 11:55AM

virgin_moneysaver wrote: »

mum has asked me a question which i don't know the answer so maybe someone here can help me

mum & dad own their house and are 'tenants in common' - their wills state that the party that dies first, their half goes to the children & the remaining partner stays in the house until their demise when their half goes to the children

I am not an expert VMS, but your parents' Wills sound very similar to my parents' setup many years ago .
I believe a key term may be "life interest". ( remaining spouse has a life interest in the property)
This type of Will was useful for safeguarding against care home fees but until recently wasn't useful from an IHT perspective. Now that Nil Rate Bands have effectively doubled, these Wills will be useful both for IHT and "carehome safeguarding" aspects for many people.

It is well worth checking that the tenancy is truly TIC ( Land Registry?) and not just relying on what it says in the Will.

To add: these types of Wills can be written in a way to ensure that the remaining spouse still has complete flexibility to do what they like. They can stay put, sell the property or downsize if they so wish.
Also technically the halfshare of the house doesn't quite belong to the kids. This is explained better later on in the thread.

margaretclare · 28 March 2008 at 12:26PM

mum & dad own their house and are 'tenants in common' - their wills state that the party that dies first, their half goes to the children & the remaining partner stays in the house until their demise when their half goes to the children

This may not be such a good idea. I've heard of several cases recently where this had happened. 'The children' had inherited a house after the last survivor of the marriage had died, and it had caused a lot of disagreement and family fallings-out. One of the 'children' wanted to live in the house, the others wanted it sold so that they could have their share, either to get on to the property ladder themselves, to pay debts or to pay off an existing mortgage, whatever. Big disagreements, and I've heard some of them.

It's the reason why our wills provide that all our remaining assets, on the decease of the last survivor, are to be turned into cash and then divvied up equally among the named beneficiaries.

Also, what happens if the survivor doesn't want to stay in the house, for whatever reason? Neither of us would want to stay here alone in widowhood - the memories would be just too painful.

Just a couple of alternative thoughts.

who owns the house?

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free