severely disabled mum in rehab unit

fogartyblue.

Mojisola wrote: »

I'll be watching the other thread and see what people have said because I don't think your parents have been treated fairly. Remember the council have no obligation to look after your parents' finances - they have an obligation to keep their costs down.

Thanks, I will as well.
I agree that the council are not interested in dad & mum's money/asset.
But they were very clear when I asked them about the costs that have to be paid and that the 'whole' house being dad's, but only mum's 'home'.

As all your Mum's belongings and possessions are in the family home and she goes away and comes back to it, I would say that it is still her primary residence. Did she really understand the consequences of the paperwork she was asked to sign? Did she have any independent advice about her situation?

You would would you? That's not what the council said.
The people from the council went to see her and they discussed everything (I am assuming as she was alone at the time). When I intervened later by telephoning them, they said that mum was quite clear in saying that she did not and would not be staying in dad's house on her own.
They had her confirm that in writing.
No she didn't have anybody with her and from what I know, she never asked for any help. I knew nothing about it until later!
She simply told the truth.

The reasoning behind not taking a couple's home into account when doing the finances is that one spouse should not be left homeless because the couple's capital is used to pay for care. If that happens, the council benefits financially but the taxpayer then has to pay out for the spouse's rent for the rest of his/her life. At most, I think the council should only have a claim on half the value of the house.

Yes that was a worry of mine, but the council insisted that that would never happen. They told me that dad's house would always be there for mum to use if she wanted to as the debt would only be repaid after she had died or herself had to go into care, by the sale of the house.
The council insisted that as it was dad's property and was not shared in any way from a financial point of view, the council were fully entitled to charge it until there was no more than £23000 of equity left.

Please get some independent advice - professionals will know of similar cases and know whether the council have overstepped the mark.

Yes I think I will. I will make an appointment with the council to find out about revising the exemption on a yearly basis if it can be said if mum has lived in the house for most of that year.

As for contacting others, I presume you mean AgeUK, is it not now a little late to start arguing about what mum agreed to in early 2010?
Thinking about it, I would have to make out that mum had lost her marbles when she had the discussion and signed those forms (I don't even know what the forms are!) with the council.
They would argue that she was clear in what she said at the time!

I will telephone AgeUK and see what they say tomorrow.

Thanks for the help.

On another note and after what Cameron said today about the disease, I have just been doing a little research about how many people are actually suffering from this disease. What has struck me is that I have come across reports that some sufferers are having their care home costs paid for by the NHS whilst others aren't. It seems from what I have just been reading that it is a 'postcode lottery' as to where you live and get funding.

Is that right?

Anubis_2

It seems from what I have just been reading that it is a 'postcode lottery' as to where you live and get funding.

It's ALWAYS a postcode lottery regarding funding.... Even for NHS wheelchairs. This is how it works... Council A get x amount, council B get a different x amount, then each council has its own regulations on who the money goes to.

So for any funding of any kind it's always a postcode lottery, just like the NHS is.

Mojisola

Don't start with the council. Get some advice before you talk with them.

You won't have to suggest that your Mum wasn't mentally capable, just that she didn't understand the consequences of what she was signing and that she wasn't thinking of the years ahead, just how she felt at the time. There are plenty of intelligent people who, in a time of great stress and faced with a situation they have never been in before, can be talked into signing paperwork without fully comprehending the long-term results. I would expect your mother was thinking very much in the short-term while coming to terms with your father going into a home.

Have you been in contact the Alzheimer's Society - http://alzheimers.org.uk/ They have a lot of local offices around the country.

fogartyblue.

Mojisola wrote: »

Don't start with the council. Get some advice before you talk with them.

You won't have to suggest that your Mum wasn't mentally capable, just that she didn't understand the consequences of what she was signing and that she wasn't thinking of the years ahead, just how she felt at the time. There are plenty of intelligent people who, in a time of great stress and faced with a situation they have never been in before, can be talked into signing paperwork without fully comprehending the long-term results. I would expect your mother was thinking very much in the short-term while coming to terms with your father going into a home.

Have you been in contact the Alzheimer's Society - http://alzheimers.org.uk/ They have a lot of local offices around the country.

Thank you. I will telephone AgeUK first then.

I know what you mean, but I do worry that with what she signed has been proven to be the case for 2010 at least and probably for last year as well.
I don't want it to be seen or thought that I am trying to undermine mum by telling the council that mum didn't think of the consequences at the time.
I am looking at it now in hindsight and can see that dad's home is being lost, so I am wanting to change it all to make the council pay instead.
I hope you can see what I am saying. It looks like I am trying to overturn the original decision anyway I can despite evidence being there that mum was proven right in what she intended to happen so that the house isn't lost.

Of course I can now see what should have happened. Mum should have said nothing or told a white lie that she was wanting to live in dad's house and keeping quiet about staying with her sister. And someone should have been with her when all of this was being discussed and agreed - with the sound of it, she may have been bullied by the council!

No, as I have said, nobody has been asked to get involved, we left it to mum and she left it to the council to decide what was best for dad.

fogartyblue.

UPDATE

I telephoned AgeUK this morning and went down to see them at lunch time.

Yes they too were surprised that the council have treated the family home as available capital for dad.

When I explained that mum probably spends more time at her sisters than she does at home, the lady said that the council were within their rights to question if that house is now mum's permanent home.
The lady said that this has cropped up before especially where there is a second home involved overseas.
Given the facts it is all down to interpretation of what constitutes a permanent home. Mum has clearly agreed with the council that for the time being the family home is not her permanent home as she is not there that often.

The council have some discretion in this matter, but as so far it can be proved that for 2010 and probably 2011 as well, mum's permanent residence has NOT been the family home.

She can only have one permanent home, although she couldn't tell me if that determination can change from year to year. She believes that once it has been established by the council then that is it, even though mum might spend every week in the family home at sometime in the future.

She was upset to hear that mum nor anybody had taken advice before all this happened including objecting to the decision that dad only needs social care and no medical caring. She said that that was a common ploy to stop the council/NHS having to fund the care.

It will be a little difficult now to go back to 2010 to argue that that decision was wrong.

At the end she told me to go to the council to see if they would be happy to reverse the decision regarding the permanent home, but she held very little hope out that it could be done.

She couldn't comment on the legal argument as to if mum has any legal call on 50% of the equity, that is for a solicitor to deal with. One that we cannot afford to employ.

So yes, whilst there is a living husband/wife/partner, the exempting of the family home is not a forgone conclusion and it can be assessed to provide for the care of the absent partner. Even to the extent that the council will charge the property with the costs involved. It is all down to how the council interpret what a permanent home is.

downshifter98

Glad I started this thread as we are now forewarned how cynically the council/social services can interpret things; if Mum does end up in care Dad has only one permanent home and that is the one he owns jointly with Mum; if he should stay with anyone else occasionally this will be kept private. I'm quite accepting of the fact that eventually Mum and Dad's property might be used to pay for their care but not whilst one is still alive and needing a roof over their heads. Cheeky !!!!!!s.

fogartyblue.

downshifter98 wrote: »

Glad I started this thread as we are now forewarned how cynically the council/social services can interpret things; if Mum does end up in care Dad has only one permanent home and that is the one he owns jointly with Mum; if he should stay with anyone else occasionally this will be kept private. I'm quite accepting of the fact that eventually Mum and Dad's property might be used to pay for their care but not whilst one is still alive and needing a roof over their heads. Cheeky !!!!!!s.

Yes I'm so pleased too that you did bring up your worries as I would not have thought about mentioning what was happening to my mum.

It just goes to show how devious you have to be when dealing with the council. Telling them too much information is clearly the wrong thing to do.

not whilst one is still alive and needing a roof over their heads.


was precisely my worry too. But the council have said that they would not force a sale until both are in a care home or have died. So there is no reason to worry that the house would go. Whether I believe that will be the case is another thing!

downshifter98

fogartyblue. wrote: »

Yes I'm so pleased too that you did bring up your worries as I would not have thought about mentioning what was happening to my mum.

It just goes to show how devious you have to be when dealing with the council. Telling them too much information is clearly the wrong thing to do.

not whilst one is still alive and needing a roof over their heads.


was precisely my worry too. But the council have said that they would not force a sale until both are in a care home or have died. So there is no reason to worry that the house would go. Whether I believe that will be the case is another thing!

Didn't mean to wind you up any more than you already are and I do realise that putting a charge against a property is not the same as kicking a person out of their home but, at a time when people can be vulnerable, it's scary to think that social services/the council can interpret the rules so loosely; I chatted to a pal today who has a neighbour aged 90 who is in a very similar position (ie his wife is in care) and in-spite of what the government websites (NHS, Direct.gov) state he also has a charge building up on his property. I'm fast learning that, on Mum and Dad's behalf, I will have to question everything that we are 'told' re Mum's care and the funding of it.

fogartyblue.

downshifter98 wrote: »

Didn't mean to wind you up any more than you already are and I do realise that putting a charge against a property is not the same as kicking a person out of their home but, at a time when people can be vulnerable, it's scary to think that social services/the council can interpret the rules so loosely; I chatted to a pal today who has a neighbour aged 90 who is in a very similar position (ie his wife is in care) and in-spite of what the government websites (NHS, Direct.gov) state he also has a charge building up on his property. I'm fast learning that, on Mum and Dad's behalf, I will have to question everything that we are 'told' re Mum's care and the funding of it.

Thank you. I just didn't realise the extnt of this problem. I thought that it was just mum's bad luck!

So it seems to be reasonably common that despite what everybody seems to think and what the various websites say, the permanent family home is not always exempted!

This has really opened a can of worms!

The more people know about this the better.

Mojisola

I remember posting last year that the councils would be finding all sorts of ways to squeeze extra money from wherever they can but it's shocking to see it in action with older people who are in a vulnerable state.