Grandmother losing EVERYTHING!

seven-day-weekend

Steve_xx wrote: »

I'm sorry, but I don't readily accept that. There may be a few who think that but the majority will have the sense they were born with and realise that whoever levies a bill for care, or anything else for that matter, will be satisfied with its payment without recourse as to where the finance for that payment was derived.

Most will, but some don't and I was just attempting to clarify. I'm sorry if you thought it was uneccessary to do so.

seven-day-weekend

Archi_Bald wrote: »

They probably think so because they don't have any other money to pay their bills.

But even then you are not MADE to. You will get a charge put on it, but you cannot be made to sell it.

Steve_xx

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But even then you are not MADE to. You will get a charge put on it, but you cannot be made to sell it.

You're splitting hairs here. If no payment is forthcoming or is going to be forthcoming then a demand will be made for payment and that payment would eventually be realised from the forced sale of the persons property, in the absence of any other means to discharge the debt.

mike88

One issue which has not been raised is the situation for those living in Council rented accommodation. My mother in law went into residential care and as a result was either told to relinquish the accommodation or pay rent with funds she did not have. As a result she was effectively evicted. Again as per my earlier post this seems fair.

Steve_xx

mike88 wrote: »

One issue which has not been raised is the situation for those living in Council rented accommodation. My mother in law went into residential care and as a result was either told to relinquish the accommodation or pay rent with funds she did not have. As a result she was effectively evicted. Again as per my earlier post this seems fair.

Yes, in a case where a person needed care and they also had a council house, then if that person needed funding for their care and they were also being funded for the payment of their rent, then the local authority would not fund the two.


Similarly, if a person who rented a private property was being funded by Housing Benefit, and they then had to go into local authority funded care, then the local authority would not continue to fund both.


Technically, you couldn't term it as an eviction, though on the face of it, it does seem like that. In reality it is an agreed exchange of local authority funded living circumstances. It would be hard to justify a local authority funding both options simultaneously and in any case the person going into care would, I guess, be unlikely to be returning home.