If father goes into care

[Deleted User]

Trebor16 wrote: »

What was the legal basis that the council used to insist that the house had to be shown as jointly owned again?

One of their workers told me (privately) that they suspected that the bungalow had been put into Mum's name in order to avoid it being taken by the Council if Dad needed help later (deprivation of assets?) which is a very common ploy used by families. That honestly wasn't the case with my parents - but they wouldn't budge.

Mum now has power of attorney for Dad's financial and health matters.

[Deleted User]

Tuesday_Tenor wrote: »

I totally understnd about homecare not being useful as you can't be sure when he will wake up.

As another mechanism for giving Mum a break for a few hours:
Do you have a Crossroads-type respite service in your area?
http://www.crossroads.org.uk/
Possibly not, otherwise the Social Worker/DN would no doubt have suggested it ...

If you do, it would be well worth considering as you do need all the resources you can get. Toiletting would be a normal task for the staff. The service would be set up very sensitively, aiming to find a staff member who 'fits' with the family, recognising that ideally they wouldn't want someone in at all. The service is respite for the CARER, so you're Mum's needs (for timing of the visit etc.) are regarded as important, as well as the detailed plan for caring for you dad.

HTH
(from a former Crossroads Manager)

Thanks for this - I've just looked it up and there IS a Crossroad service near us, and the office isn't far from me, so I'm going to contact them. Don't know why no-one has mentioned this to Mum (or maybe they did earlier on when she was still coping okay?) Will find out more and then talk to her.

Thank you !

Mojisola

Corona wrote: »

Thanks for this - I've just looked it up and there IS a Crossroad service near us, and the office isn't far from me, so I'm going to contact them. Don't know why no-one has mentioned this to Mum (or maybe they did earlier on when she was still coping okay?) Will find out more and then talk to her./QUOTE]

Crossroads is for the carers so it's not unusual for it not to be mentioned to the person needing care. I was referred when Crossroads when I had a carer's assessment done.

[Deleted User]

Trebor16 wrote: »

What was the legal basis that the council used to insist that the house had to be shown as jointly owned again?

I assume because they thought it had been done to deprive Dad of his assets (so that they couldn't be taken to fund his care)? Not sure if Mum has anything about this in writing - will check.

John_Pierpoint

I don't know anything much about this charity. Anyone else got practical experience ?

http://www.vitalise.org.uk/

Big society here we come?

Like the Japanese already, we are facing "the lost decade" and the "demographic time bomb"; so we cannot expect even the present level of state provided elder care to continue, when it becomes our turn.

This option might be suitable for some of those in the USA, but I am not sure that there is a European equivalent:
http://internationalliving.com/2010/04/cuenca-ecuador%E2%80%94il%E2%80%99s-no-1-retirement-haven/

Trebor16

Corona wrote: »

One of their workers told me (privately) that they suspected that the bungalow had been put into Mum's name in order to avoid it being taken by the Council if Dad needed help later (deprivation of assets?) which is a very common ploy used by families. That honestly wasn't the case with my parents - but they wouldn't budge.

Mum now has power of attorney for Dad's financial and health matters.

Did they actually formalise anything Corona? Did they write to your parents in an official capacity?

Trebor16

Corona wrote: »

I assume because they thought it had been done to deprive Dad of his assets (so that they couldn't be taken to fund his care)? Not sure if Mum has anything about this in writing - will check.

While both were alive and if your dad had to go into care, with your mum still living in the house, the house would be out of bounds to the council, so it wouldn't be deprivation of assets.

Tuesday_Tenor

Trebor16 wrote: »

While both were alive and if your dad had to go into care, with your mum still living in the house, the house would be out of bounds to the council, so it wouldn't be deprivation of assets.

I think that's misleading.

It was at the point at which the jointly-owned old house was sold and the new house put into Mum's name only that it would have been deemed by the Council that Dad was deliberately depriving himself of assets in order to avoid paying care in future. As he'd already had 2 strokes by that point then the issue of possible future care needs was a genuine consideration. [The council would have been on much more shaky ground if Dad, even at the same age, had been in excellent health. A much greyer situation].

Yes, you're right that the council can't touch dad's share of the house while Mum's living there. They can, though, put a charge on Dad's share of the house to recoup any costs owed for Dad's care when the house is eventually sold in the future.

Corona, the possibility of 'deprivation of assets' issues comes up frequently on this board, but I haven't seen any other threads where a council has actually taken action to ensure somone's assets are 'restored' to them. I think some people here are, like me, genuinely insterested in how it was done. However, you weren't personally involved so may not have access to the information, so don't feel obliged to satisfy our curiosity. You may find we point others to this thread in future, as evidence that councils will consider deprivation of assets seriously and DO take action over it.

Best wishes as you go through this difficult time with aging parents. Been through it myself the last 3 years. Now strangely free (with mixed feelings of sadness and relief).

Trebor16

Tuesday_Tenor wrote: »

I think that's misleading.

Not at all. It is abundantly clear.

Tuesday_Tenor wrote:

It was at the point at which the jointly-owned old house was sold and the new house put into Mum's name only that it would have been deemed by the Council that Dad was deliberately depriving himself of assets in order to avoid paying care in future. As he'd already had 2 strokes by that point then the issue of possible future care needs was a genuine consideration. [The council would have been on much more shaky ground if Dad, even at the same age, had been in excellent health. A much greyer situation].

But while the wife was still alive and living in the house it cannot be taken into consideration by the council.

Tuesday_Tenor wrote:

Yes, you're right that the council can't touch dad's share of the house while Mum's living there. They can, though, put a charge on Dad's share of the house to recoup any costs owed for Dad's care when the house is eventually sold in the future.

No they can't. While the spouse or other eligible persons are living in the house the council cannot put a charge on the house and the house has to be totally disregarded. Even when the father passes away his share of the house cannot be touched under any circumstances. This is made clear in CRAG (section 7.003)

http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_125836.pdf

Even where a house is jointly owned by a person who may have to go into care and another person who does not live at the house the council cannot put a charge on the property. The other half owner would be able to object to any charge put on the property and councils do not like the joint ownership scenario one little bit. They might suggest that the person going into care sells their share of the house but who usually would buy a 50% share?

Tuesday_Tenor wrote:

Corona, the possibility of 'deprivation of assets' issues comes up frequently on this board, but I haven't seen any other threads where a council has actually taken action to ensure somone's assets are 'restored' to them. I think some people here are, like me, genuinely insterested in how it was done. However, you weren't personally involved so may not have access to the information, so don't feel obliged to satisfy our curiosity. You may find we point others to this thread in future, as evidence that councils will consider deprivation of assets seriously and DO take action over it.

I would be interested to hear of the legal basis they used and what formal action they actually took to reverse the registration of ownership of the house with the land registry.

Deprivation of assets is very wooly in terms of how far back it applies. Councils are trying it on in the current economic climate and I wouldn't be surprised if in many cases they are chancing their arm in situations where proving deprivation of assets is very tenuous.

cavework

Quote ....That's great to hear. I can see that being the next step for my parents. And I think it would be comforting to Mum if she knew she could have him back home for short visits. Right now she sees nursing home as "The End" for him and is still struggling on. However, she DOES have some respite booked in during November, so will have time to recover a bit then (and I'll take her off for some retail therapy - which she loves )

When a parent enters a Nursing home please believe me , it is not always an end to being part of family life. Obviously there are circumstances where people cannot ever return to their home and the family can do no more apart from visit.
But just because in certain circumstances .. due to health , Dementia ..etc and the person requiring specific care that the family cannot provide,this does not always mean that they cannot return to their home and spouse for a visit for a few hours, every so often.
My Mum finds it very hard to visit my father in the home but a twice monthly visit where we bring him home to her is worth all the forward planning it takes.