Care home fees and home owners.

JuneBow

chrisdown1 wrote: »

Does anyone here have any experience of what happens to a married partner who is left in the marital home with regard to the above outlined scenario?. particularly with regard to paying care home fees..
Many thanks in advance.
Chris.

Doesn't matter whether her name is on the deeds or not. Deprivation of capital is not an issue here.
See CRAG 7.003
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_125836.pdf

chrisdown1

margaretclare wrote: »

Thanks for this.

This is a 'what if' that seems to exercise the minds of an awful lot of older people - for 'older people' read anyone 60 onwards.

I have to say, DH and I are in our mid-70s and it is not something we give much, if any, thought to. We're too busy getting on with our lives and enjoying life for the time we have left. But we do seem to be a bit unusual in that respect, to judge by what you read on these boards and elsewhere.

If both mum and dad are in good health then it's quite likely that neither will need to end their lives in permanent residential care. This is something I'd like you to get over to them, before this worry blights their remaining years together. It is only a minority of people who end their lives in this way. I repeat: a minority. Life is uncertain, many things can happen which you just can't foresee, but life is given us to be enjoyed, it's the only life we have (as far as we know!) and is it worth worrying about something that many not happen?

Having said all that, I simply would not live in any house unless my name was on the deeds. As the Land Registry website explains, there are 2 ways of registering title to a property:

In the case of DH and I, when we married 10 years ago we got the title put into joint names, not tenants-in-common. In his case, he always said he didn't want any part of my estate, that wasn't what he was here for, and would have been quite happy to go on living here with title in my name only. I wasn't happy with it, so that's what we did.

HTH

Indeed, I could not agree more, the complication in my parents case is that my mum is bipolar, a horrible term I know, and her state of mind is not always, despite 40 odd years of medication, buoyant, shall we say. Its at these times when she is not thinking quite straight that questions such as the ones I have posed here trouble her. I talk to my mum for hours trying to assuage her fears on various topics but in this case, ie a question of legality, I did not want to pass it off as "dont worry mum I am sure it will be ok". But thanks to yourself, and others here on this forum I can at least tell her with some authority that if my dad does go in to a care home leaving her at home, the fact that she is not registered on the deeds does not mean she will have to sell up, or pay care home fees with money she does not have.
Chris.

margaretclare

chrisdown1 wrote: »

Indeed, I could not agree more, the complication in my parents case is that my mum is bipolar, a horrible term I know, and her state of mind is not always, despite 40 odd years of medication, buoyant, shall we say. Its at these times when she is not thinking quite straight that questions such as the ones I have posed here trouble her. I talk to my mum for hours trying to assuage her fears on various topics but in this case, ie a question of legality, I did not want to pass it off as "dont worry mum I am sure it will be ok". But thanks to yourself, and others here on this forum I can at least tell her with some authority that if my dad does go in to a care home leaving her at home, the fact that she is not registered on the deeds does not mean she will have to sell up, or pay care home fees with money she does not have.
Chris.

Thank you, Chris. Now you've explained about your mum being bipolar (yes, horrible, I agree) it is more difficult for her to accept a rational and logical explanation of the minority of people to whom this happens. She's much more likely to brush aside logic and rationality and say 'but it must be me/us, WE will be in that minority whatever you say!'

Not being on the deeds seems to be different for different people. When my first husband and I bought our first home together back in 1962 our mortgage broker suggested we should both be on the deeds. As buying your own home was not all that usual then, certainly for me I was the first in my family to have the opportunity, I wouldn't have known unless that broker had made the suggestion. I've talked to many people since of my generation who said 'oh no, it was in his name, after all he paid the mortgage/was the breadwinner, I was only the housewife'. I've always been glad we had it jointly.

When we moved here in 1990 his health was so bad that he couldn't be on the mortgage or the insurance policy. He died 18 months later and it was all still in my name. (NB: I had been the main breadwinner for a number of years before that and that was how I managed to get a mortgage in my sole name).

When I got together with the man who was to become my second husband, I didn't worry about going into care, the property going to be sold for care fees, I worried about something different - that I might die first and that he would be homeless. Actually, just being married gives some degree of security, and it didn't worry either him or my first husband. However, we did get the title to the property altered, not difficult, fairly straightforward, and the Land Registry people are very easy to deal with.

margaretclare

JuneBow wrote: »

Doesn't matter whether her name is on the deeds or not. Deprivation of capital is not an issue here.
See CRAG 7.003
http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/documents/digitalasset/dh_125836.pdf

This is a very interesting document. It's clearly-written in plain English, has been updated as recently as last year, and if more people read it then it might allay a lot of the kinds of worry many people have. In particular, it might get rid of a lot of ill-informed gossip and 'pub talk' which we have seen quoted on these boards i.e. 'the government take your house' or even worse 'the NHS take your house!' I was particularly impressed that throughout it emphasises that in the case of a couple with one member in residential care, only that person's own income/assets or 50% of the couple's combined income/assets are taken into account.

chrisdown1

margaretclare wrote: »

Thank you, Chris. Now you've explained about your mum being bipolar (yes, horrible, I agree) it is more difficult for her to accept a rational and logical explanation of the minority of people to whom this happens. She's much more likely to brush aside logic and rationality and say 'but it must be me/us, WE will be in that minority whatever you say!'

Not being on the deeds seems to be different for different people. When my first husband and I bought our first home together back in 1962 our mortgage broker suggested we should both be on the deeds. As buying your own home was not all that usual then, certainly for me I was the first in my family to have the opportunity, I wouldn't have known unless that broker had made the suggestion. I've talked to many people since of my generation who said 'oh no, it was in his name, after all he paid the mortgage/was the breadwinner, I was only the housewife'. I've always been glad we had it jointly.

When we moved here in 1990 his health was so bad that he couldn't be on the mortgage or the insurance policy. He died 18 months later and it was all still in my name. (NB: I had been the main breadwinner for a number of years before that and that was how I managed to get a mortgage in my sole name).

When I got together with the man who was to become my second husband, I didn't worry about going into care, the property going to be sold for care fees, I worried about something different - that I might die first and that he would be homeless. Actually, just being married gives some degree of security, and it didn't worry either him or my first husband. However, we did get the title to the property altered, not difficult, fairly straightforward, and the Land Registry people are very easy to deal with.

Under normal circumstances not being on title deeds does not come into my mums consciousness, she is normally secure in the knowledge that my dad has it all covered and does what you and your husband do, which is get on and enjoy life , but the irrationality of her bipolarness, if that is the right word, I did not want to say "condition", is what has driven my questions here. Armed as I am now with the knowledge that if it helps my mum, property title can be altered fairly easily, and that even if it is not altered she will not be thrown out of her own home or made to pay huge care home fees for my dad, then it may ease her worries. In truth I did not believe that any of these scenarios could or would be enforced, but I was not one hundred percent sure.
Chris.