Care Home Fees - family home being treated as capital??

JuneBow

Mojisola wrote: »

What's your opinion on the LA taking the full value of the house into account because it is owned only in the father's name? Shouldn't they be looking at only up to 50% of the value?

None of the house is assessable.

CRAG states that
"..its value should still be disregarded if when it is occupied in whole or in part by the residents partner"

Clearly Fogartyblue's mother is the partner of Fogartyblue's father. It matters not a jot whose name is on the deeds.

This LA are trying it on big time. They need to repay the whole of the fees which have been paid in error.

John_Pierpoint

Can we have a link please, this sounds like the argument with the NHS about "continuing health care" - sounds simple but just try claiming it.

Morrison117

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Can we have a link please, this sounds like the argument with the NHS about "continuing health care" - sounds simple but just try claiming it.

This may be what you're looking for John Pierpoint. If not, I hope it will help someone or other along the road.


CRAG = Charging for Residential Accommodation Guide - which is updated, in price/value terms every year on or about 6th April, budget time. So the individual £s may be changed, but the overall information won't change unless there is a change in the laws governing charging for residential accommodation.

CRAG is a hefty 171 pages long document, and the treatment of property section is down at page 41 onwards.

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

Para 7.003
Where the resident no longer occupies a dwelling as his home, its value should still be disregarded where it is occupied in whole or in part by
• the resident's partner, former partner or civil partner (except where the resident is estranged or divorced from the partner, former partner or civil partner)
• a lone parent who is the claimant’s estranged or divorced partner
• a relative (as defined at 7.004) of the resident or member of the residents family (as defined at 7.007) who
- is aged 60 or over, or
- is a child of the resident aged under 18, or
- is incapacitated

PS. This isn't something that anybody should 'claim' as such. It is the rule book that local authoritites are required to abide by. In other words, if a house/home is still required to house a relative (person as described in 7.003 of CRAG), the local authority is not enabled/entitled/allowed to include it in any financial assessment. That's what property disregard is all about. The property must be disregarded in a financial assessment if the above comes into the equation.

ericonabike

This sounds very similar to the legislation in existence when I worked for D[H]SS. There was considerable case law about 'occupying the house as their home' but in essence it boiled down to a question of fact rather than law. I would suggest appealing the decision, assuming that such a right still exists [?] and pointing out that an extended break from the house, in these circumstances, does not of itself amount to a failure to occupy the home. At some point, if the relative did not return to the house, it would be reasonable to treat it as being no longer occupied, but each case should be treated on its merits. Unless your mother has made a decision not to return to her home at all, I would suggest its value should be disregarded.