Deprivation of capital

NLW

Strangely it was the same issue with the house I own now, It had been in the same family for over 100 years but when the (single never married no kids brother) who lived here died one of the other relatives wanted the house but because all the family was on benefits apart from one on Australia they had to sell it to me because they could not afford it.

teddysmum

NLW wrote: »

That was my thought it is a asset and will be used to pay the care home fees.

It seems that as benefits have been claimed on all sides it was convenient to have the house registered in a dead relatives name.

The OP only states that the daughter claimed benefits(together with her husband).No mention is made that her brother claimed anything;just that he has and entered a care home (recently?).


The daughter very probably will have to pay back any HB (or other means tested benefits) claimed after their father died, but the brother may just have to pay his care home expenses, from savings and/or proceeds of the house sale, until his asset value falls into the range where help kicks in.

TELLIT01

Even if the brother was claiming benefits the value of the house would be ignored because he was living there. That's not the case for his sister.

xylophone

I should suppose that if the OP's partner's mother was on benefits when her father died, she should have reported (change of circumstances?) that she was to inherit under the intestacy.

If she wasn't on benefits when she inherited but later claimed them, I should suppose that the interest in the house would have needed to be declared.

What we don't know (perhaps another poster with knowledge of the system would be able to say) is how much effect her half/joint ownership would have had.

Her brother ( the other owner) was living in the house and perhaps had been caring for his father - I doubt he could have been forced to move except by court order which the court might have been unwilling to give- then too, the value of half a house where there was a sitting owner might have been ignored?

Now however, the house is unoccupied, the brother requires care, the sister is claiming means tested benefits, the relevant authorities would expect that full market value should be taken into account for both parties?

blackmoorowner

Thanks everyone, this has defiantly confirmed what we thought.
Just a few points i want to respond to,
When the uncle died 7 years ago, no one ever dealt with the house, as no one had any knowledge about these kind of things, and just kind of assumed everything would just go into the uncles name as he was living there, obviously it doesn't work like that we are now finding out. We are only just now dealing with getting probate, as this has all just been discovered when he moved into the care home and we want to buy the house, it was most defiantly not not changed for any benefit gains, or to avoid the benefits being cut, just a case of being unaware of the procedures.
So will they have to pay the over payments of benefits even if it wasn't in either of their names all this time?
Also my the uncle hasn't paid his sister any rent, so she hasn't profited from the house in any way, will that change things, or is it just a case of, this house should be in your name therefore you have to give back your benefits? Which seems totally unfair in my opinion.

Mojisola

blackmoorowner wrote: »

So will they have to pay the over payments of benefits even if it wasn't in either of their names all this time?

Also my the uncle hasn't paid his sister any rent, so she hasn't profited from the house in any way, will that change things, or is it just a case of, this house should be in your name therefore you have to give back your benefits? Which seems totally unfair in my opinion.

Why is it unfair? Your mother has been the owner of half a house and could have been living off that capital. Instead, she has been claiming means tested benefits.

TELLIT01

blackmoorowner wrote: »

When the uncle died 7 years ago, no one ever dealt with the house, as no one had any knowledge about these kind of things, and just kind of assumed everything would just go into the uncles name as he was living there, obviously it doesn't work like that we are now finding out.
Also my the uncle hasn't paid his sister any rent, so she hasn't profited from the house in any way, will that change things, or is it just a case of, this house should be in your name therefore you have to give back your benefits? Which seems totally unfair in my opinion.

I appreciate that nobody had any understanding of what should be done, but that won't hold much weight with an Income Related benefits claim.
It's possible that the house would have been disregarded if the brother was living there at the time the father died, as it was the brother's main residence. There is no certainty that would happen, which is why ANY change of circumstance has to be reported.
Whether you consider the system to be fair or not is unfortunately irrelevant, there are a set of rules to be adhered to both by claimants and government staff. If either party fails to do so it can become even more chaotic than it already is.

blackmoorowner

Yes I understand that rules have to be followed, which is why I was asking for advice, I was just giving my opinion.
The uncle was living in the house when his father died, he was his carer.
Thanks for the advice, We will have to buy the house at mortgage value

Ames

You need to see CAB or someone because this is a really messy situation.

It doesn't matter that your mum didn't get any rent. She has capital in a house, and if that takes her over £16k she doesn't qualify for means tested benefits. They could also say that she should have been getting rent from her brother and treat her as having that money.

The brother/uncle could get in trouble if the house is bought below market value because they'll think it's been done to reduce his assets with an eye to the financial assessment for care home fees. Again, they could treat him as having the full value of his half, not what it actually sold for.

Also, if the grandfather had any debts they could surface, since the estate hasn't been wound up properly. What happened to the rest of the estate - any bank accounts, his possessions etc?

Like I said, you've walked into a really messy and potentially ugly situation.

blackmoorowner

The uncle has lived in the house for his whole life I think, and cared for their father until his death, he also has disabilities which have now lead to him living in a care home. I don't think it even crossed his sisters head to charge him rent for a house that she hasn't lived in for over 30 years, she was fully entitled to I imagine. When we buy the house they can totally use that money to pay back the benefits, so its not a problem on that front.