Elderly relative, care homes and selling houses...a complicated enquiry!

[Deleted User]

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't know how you can say there is nothing wrong with her when you have described her behaviour. That's not normal behaviour!

You're right - it's not normal behaviour! The issue though - and I can assure you that I'm backed up here by our GP, psychiatrists and the countless doctors who have assessed my nan - is that her behaviour is not caused by mental illness but simply by the nature of her personality.

Unfortunately, you can't do anything about someone who just happens to be an attention-seeker and who loves being the centre of attention, and who maliciously creates issues to attract attention away from others.

There is nothing medically wrong with my nan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome

sleepless_saver

Deleted_User wrote: »

I'm trying to find out what grounds they have, but I believe this is something they have mentioned. The discussions that my nan's GP has had with my dad has followed those lines: that my nan is a risk to others (by wasting emergency services time) and so could be sectioned and placed into care.

If this is the way social services and the GP are thinking, I suggest you call MIND's Legal advice Helpline 0845 2259393 for advice.

Calling her behaviour a risk to others because she is potentially depriving other people of services they might need is just not on. It needs to be an actual risk to others, not a hypothetical one.

Mojisola

Deleted_User wrote: »

You're right - it's not normal behaviour! The issue though - and I can assure you that I'm backed up here by our GP, psychiatrists and the countless doctors who have assessed my nan - is that her behaviour is not caused by mental illness but simply by the nature of her personality.

Unfortunately, you can't do anything about someone who just happens to be an attention-seeker and who loves being the centre of attention, and who maliciously creates issues to attract attention away from others.

There is nothing medically wrong with my nan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome

Münchausen syndrome is a psychiatric disorder.

The social workers can't force your Gran to go into a home and then make her pay for it. If they feel they have to force her then she will have to be sectioned. If there is nothing wrong with her, they won't be able to section her and she will stay at home.

margaretclare

I'm not sure how far this would get - stating that this woman's behaviour was a risk to others by unnecessary emergency services call-outs. The emergency services also get diverted by hoax callers, they have to cope with attacks when they get to a 'shout', they do have other 'risks' to face, sadly. As she has full mental capacity I doubt whether she could be forced to go into a home if she said she didn't want to go, and as she is not physically incapacitated it couldn't be argued that she needed help and support to perform normal daily living activities - washing, dressing, toilet, feeding herself etc. However, it may be that she would like to go into a home - as the OP has said, she would like the attention. If she chose to go into a home - and some people do! - then it would have to be paid for somehow, by her, by nobody else, and if her only asset is the house she inherited from her husband, then that asset would need to be used. It would then depend on how long she lived as to whether there was anything left at the end to be inherited by the next generation.

Immediate needs annuities have been mentioned on these boards on more than one occasion and that would seem to be a reasonable option to be looked into.

Mojisola

Deleted_User wrote: »

I should quickly reply to others who have asked for what my nan wants in all of this: the answer is - attention. My nan would LOVE to be in a home amongst ill people, almost as much as she would love to be in a hospital. Very very sad, given the overwhelming attention her family has provided her all her life.

I think the answer is here - all the authorities want her to be somewhere so that she is looked after and not causing problems - she would love to be cared for in a home - the rest of the family will be able to get their lives back without the regular panics from Gran - there's the answer.

If she is willing to go into a home, they won't need to section her.

If she goes willingly, she will be expected to pay towards her care. She will have a pension and should be entitled to Attendance Allowance which will go some way towards paying the charge. The house could be rented out to help with the rest or sold to give her the capital.

If the house is sold, she could buy a care fees annuity.

Marisco

calleyw wrote: »

I am slightly confused. Why if you grandfather wanted his children to have the house did not leave it to the children letting your grandmother live there until she died or went in to care.

And I heard of a case where the was house signed over to someone to stop it be using for care fees ten years before they needed the care.

And yes the council took it to court and got it over turned and got the money.

Also if your mother is on such a low a wage is she not getting help with rent/council tax and if working over 30 hours a week and not earning over £17.5K getting working tax credits?

Yours

Calley

My mother did exactly that! When she died the house was left to me, with the proviso that my father could live in it for the rest of his life. When he had to go into a residential home, the council could do nothing!! All that is required is a bit of forward planning! But I think there does have to be 7 years between signing it over to someone and that person going into a home.

Errata

There is no 7 year rule for Deprivation of Assets, it's an urban myth.

sunnyone

Errata wrote: »

How have you come to that conclusion ?

This was a sarcastic post that was posted from the ops point of view, it not her nanas home but a future savings plan for her relatives who have failed to provide for there own futures, it mind boggeling in this day and age a whole generation of the ops family have done nothing at all to provide for there old age apart from banking on an inheritance that may not come or may be drastically reduced because her nana has the audacity to do as she wishes with her home.

Bennifred wrote: »

It matters not what the husband's perceived intent was - the property is hers (according to the OP). Not the husband's, not her family's but HERS. So what happens to it should be up to her. I'm not suggesting that any decision should be made from a position of ignorance, but it should certainly be made in her best interest, and by her as she is mentally competent.

Oldernotwiser

Deleted_User wrote: »

Hi Oldernotwiser - I really don't want to sound like a broken record, but really this is not the case. I've stated the facts in my original post and subsequent posts.

The trouble is that many of your facts are contradictory.

andyandflo

calleyw wrote: »

And I heard of a case where the was house signed over to someone to stop it be using for care fees ten years before they needed the care.

And yes the council took it to court and got it over turned and got the money.

Yes that is quite possible. To sign something over like that and for the intention of avoiding having it used to pay the fees is very dangerous territory. Hence proper legal advice should be sought beforehand to avoid this happening.

There is an old saying - there is more than one way of skinning a cat!