Selling a house thats been disregarded in means test

Trebor16

My understanding is that as long as the person who was the carer continues to live in the house then it is disregarded. If the house was sold while the owner is still in care then it would be reasonable for fees to be paid, subject to the carers own housing needs being met. If the owner passes away while the carer is still living there I do not believe they can make a retrospective claim on the property.

It should all be covered in CRAG (Charging for Residential Accomodation Guide).

ceridwen

My feeling would be that the "house cant be sold whilst OAP age carer is living there" probably was designed as a provision to protect elderly daughters who had stayed in the family home to look after their even more aged parents (ie dating from a previous era when "daughter as carer" was a societal norm). The purpose of it would have been to ensure that the daughter didnt get thrown out on the street after her years of being restricted in ability to provide her own house (ie because of being a carer).

If you look at this provision in this light - then it would likely be the case that OP's wife won't have any problem in staying in the house as long as she decides to do and of selling the house later on in her life (ie after the elderly parent dies) BUT BUT BUT I suspect that this might apply to the "carer" only and not to their spouse (ie O.H.).

My feeling would be that there might be a problem if carer died before O.H. - as O.H himself isnt the carer and I wonder if he would have the same "protection" his (carer) wife would have if he were to be left widowed iyswim.

I think that scenario needs looking into as well - maybe there is some legal "hoop to jump through" that would mean BOTH the carer and spouse (ie O.H.) could sign something stating that they are "joint" carers???

Mojisola

ceridwen wrote: »

My feeling would be that the "house cant be sold whilst OAP age carer is living there" probably was designed as a provision to protect elderly daughters who had stayed in the family home to look after their even more aged parents (ie dating from a previous era when "daughter as carer" was a societal norm). The purpose of it would have been to ensure that the daughter didnt get thrown out on the street after her years of being restricted in ability to provide her own house (ie because of being a carer).

If you look at this provision in this light - then it would likely be the case that OP's wife won't have any problem in staying in the house as long as she decides to do and of selling the house later on in her life (ie after the elderly parent dies) BUT BUT BUT I suspect that this might apply to the "carer" only and not to their spouse (ie O.H.).

My feeling would be that there might be a problem if carer died before O.H. - as O.H himself isnt the carer and I wonder if he would have the same "protection" his (carer) wife would have if he were to be left widowed iyswim.

I think that scenario needs looking into as well - maybe there is some legal "hoop to jump through" that would mean BOTH the carer and spouse (ie O.H.) could sign something stating that they are "joint" carers???

jake+1 wrote: »

Thanks for the replies. I perhaps was not very clear with my original posting. I gave up a long term job with tied accommodation so my wife could look after her father, so I also moved in with her. Its an old house with a large garden, as I'm 63 and not exactly fully fit,I don't know how many years I can do the maintenance required if we were to stay. Hence my original enquiry with regards to selling the house in the future.

Thoughtful post, ceridwen.

As jake says they gave up their home to look after his FIL, he should be as entitled as his wife to the right to live in the house. I expect he has been doing maintenance and gardening on the house since they moved there.

The problem is that, if this situation hasn't been decided on and written down in black and white, it's going to be down to someone's personal judgement which could vary from advisor to advisor.

ceridwen

Mojisola wrote: »

Thoughtful post, ceridwen.

As jake says they gave up their home to look after his FIL, he should be as entitled as his wife to the right to live in the house. I expect he has been doing maintenance and gardening on the house since they moved there.

The problem is that, if this situation hasn't been decided on and written down in black and white, it's going to be down to someone's personal judgement which could vary from advisor to advisor.

Valid points there...

My guess would be that if different advisors differed come the time - then it would boil down to having to go through an appeals process (at a time of upset & lot of work anyway). Therefore - if something goes down in "black and white" now then it would help "shortcut" through any palaver like that that arose later on - and likely make life easier.

Errata

Speculating - the worst case scenario is that the LA won't disregard the property as the daughter only moved in (with OH) a relatively short time ago and their position is very different to a daugher and OH who have lived with the father and cared for him for many years and his home has been their family home for all that time.
It would be worth seeking clarity on this before any guidance is sought about if the house could be sold in 5/10 years time by the couple, with them retaining all proceeds from the sale.

[Deleted User]

personally i`d worry about what happens in 5 or 10 years time WHEN it happens

ceridwen

Depends on the person maybe to some extent?

But personally I'd a darn sight sooner plan years ahead financially - and have often been very grateful indeed that I take that outlook - as things would have gone a lot worse for me if I hadnt.

So - I do think OP would be wise to "think ahead".