Advice on parents money?

Gavin83

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't think that they can put a charge on the house if the spouse still lives there.

They can, although if the spouse is in the property it's value will be disregarded anyway. However, if the spouse is also the joint owner (or any other joint owner for that matter) then the land registry will need permission from the other owner to issue the charge.

Baggysdad

The important point about the charge (the deferred payment scheme) is the opening comment in clause 2.4 of the Age Concern fact sheet in the link posted above.

If your property is taken into account.....

Section 2.1 of the Age Concern fact sheet makes it clear that if a spouse is living at home, the house must be disregarded. Therefore, in such cases a charge CANNOT be placed on the property.

The OP needs to tactfully discuss with dad the idea of changing the property to tenants in common (dad can do this without the agreement of mum) and then changing his Will. Either to leave his estate (including his share of the property) to, say, his children, or leaving his share of the estate in a life interest trust so that mum enjoys the income (which can be used to part fund her care) and on her death the capital passes to, say, the children. The latter option makes it difficult for the Will to be contested under legislation which requires someone to make provision for their spouse.

B

Errata

The interpretration of the disregard is that the person in the care home will not be considered to have liquid assets totaling £x if part of the x is the value of their share of the property. This figure will be disregarded, the local authority will fund any shortfall in fees and will put a charge on the house.
The reasoning behind this is that local authorities are not charities, they have a duty to taxpayers to maximise their income and minimise their expenditure.
The reasoning behind this is that it would be absurd for local authorities to fund the care of someone who is the part owner of a property worth half a million pounds.
My mother owned a house with her spouse. When she went into care the LA assessed her finances and put a charge on the property. I'm quite sure if the LA's action had been illegal her solicitor would not have let it stand when he settled her estate.

EdInvestor

This explains why the tenants in common approach is useful.

Where a resident is joint owner of a property the local authority should
base its valuation upon the value of resident’s interest in the property
under the current circumstances rather than the share of the proceeds
the resident would receive were the whole property to be sold. The
value of that interest depends on whether anyone would be willing to
purchase it from the resident in the current circumstances.

Guidance contained in the Department of Health’s Charging for
residential accommodation guide (CRAG) at paragraphs 7.012 - 7.014
suggests that the value of a joint interest in property will be heavily
influenced by whether the other joint owner or another interested party is
willing to buy the resident’s share. If not, it is highly unlikely that an
outsider would be willing to buy into the property. In these
circumstances the value of the interest, even to a willing buyer, could be
very low or could effectively be nil.

EdInvestor

Errata wrote: »

My mother owned a house with her spouse. When she went into care the LA assessed her finances and put a charge on the property. I'm quite sure if the LA's action had been illegal her solicitor would not have let it stand when he settled her estate.

If the spouse was living in the property it should have been disregarded and also:.

The Department of Health’s advice is that where more than one person
owns the same piece of land, the local authority cannot place a charge
on the property. It advises that the local authority register a caution
instead. This means that the local authority will be informed when the
house has been sold. (See Sections 3.2 - 3.4 regarding the valuation of
jointly owned property).

Perhaps the rules have been changed/clarified.

Biggles

Errata wrote: »

My mother owned a house with her spouse. When she went into care the LA assessed her finances and put a charge on the property. I'm quite sure if the LA's action had been illegal her solicitor would not have let it stand when he settled her estate.

Unfortunately, solicitors don't always get everything right.

If her spouse remained in the original house, there should have been no charge placed on the property at any time. Either they were misinformed about the status of the spouse or they made an error.

Errata

Sorry - I don't believe that both the Local Authority, the Land Registry and the solicitor got it wrong.
If you believe they were then please provide references to the legal instruments I can check on the internet that I can use as evidence in a court of law to enable me to successfully sue the LA, Land Registry and the solicitor.
This evidence may also be of great benefit to others, both now and in the future.

weanie

I have only second hand information from others in similar circumstances but this seems to indicate that the local authority cannot use the residence as an asset for charging if there is still a relative over 60 or a spouse who is still living in the house when the individual goes into care. A friend recently confirmed that her mother-in-laws house was not used in this way whenher father-in-law had to go into a care home and for the period of one year, until his death, the local authority paid his care using only his DWP entitlements as subsidy.

EdInvestor

Errata wrote: »

Sorry - I don't believe that both the Local Authority, the Land Registry and the solicitor got it wrong.
If you believe they were then please provide references to the legal instruments I can check on the internet that I can use as evidence in a court of law to enable me to successfully sue the LA, Land Registry and the solicitor.
This evidence may also be of great benefit to others, both now and in the future.

http://www.housingcare.org/downloads/kbase/2299.pdf


Where the land is jointly owned the
resident’s interest is technically in the
proceeds of sale of that land and not an
interest in the land itself. In this case
section 22 (8) of HASSASSA has the
effect of preventing the registration of an
interest in the proceeds of sale of land.
The authority may therefore only register
a less effective caution.

Poppy9

If your mother does become the sole owner of the house this would give you the opportunity to place your mother in the best possible care home of your choice if you are funding it.

The LA are well aware of avoidance tactics used by relatives to avoid care home bills by transferring assets etc. and do look into when property was transferred etc. and they can still put a charge on the property if they deem the action to have been done to avoid funding care payments. As your mother is already in the assessment system they will be aware of all her assets.

While it maybe nice to inherit a house really we need to look at them as assets for the owners to improve their quality of life in their time of need. Owning a house of value does give you greater choices with regard to the care you receive in your later years. It may mean you can live at home and buy in full time care rather than go into residential accommodation.