Removing lodger/cohabitating person from parent's home when they go into care

BrynNormanCott

My partner's sole surviving parent has been taken into full time care after a hospital stay.  The only asset they have is the house which is owned Freehold and in their sole name.  The have a person living with them who has always been classed as a rent free 'lodger', but in fact is their cohabitating partner.  The family need this person to leave the house so that it can be cleared and sold to pay for the care fees.  The person has never paid rent, does not have any form of tenancy and is not named on any of the utility bills.  Can a simple notice to quit in the form of a letter be issued or is some other legal process required? 

It is also my understanding that this person is currently using their partner's bank account as their own as they have no money or income.  Without a power of attorney or deputyship in place currently how do we get the bank to stop the card to avoid further use of funds?

Thank you for your responses

elsien

Has the parent in question lost capacity around both their finances and who has permission to live in their house?

I’m presuming so from the tone of your thread, but it doesn’t automatically follow that because someone needs care they lack capacity so if they are still able to understand those things, then what happens next remains their choice. 

With regards to the bank account, is it just in the parents name or is it a joint account? Either way you don’t need a power of attorney to inform the bank that the parent has lost capacity and you have safeguarding concerns around their money.

You also need to consider whether the cohabitee ( I would not use the term lodger because I don’t think that’s what they are) Has acquired any sort of beneficial interest in the property or can be classified as dependent in any other way. 

And I am suspecting some animosity, but you do have to consider what the parent would want to do in the circumstances as part of any  best interest process for financial decisions on their behalf taking into account how they have acted while they still do have capacity,  which is to financially support their partner, whether the rest of the family thinks that they are freeloading, or not. 

Also you sure that the house is not disregarded for means testing purposes because  I would suggest that would not be taken into account given that the person that is living there is the partner and is probably also over 60? 

You cannot sell the house until you have deputy ship.  As things stand that is going to take months. 

Mark_d

My understanding is that the house shouldn't need to be sold to pay for care fees, as the sole surviving parent's partner still lives there.

Does the sole surviving parent's have any say in what happens as regards the house and their partner?

It sounds that you feel the parent's partner had no right to live in the house or use the parent's bank account but maybe the wishes of the parent need to be respected

BrynNormanCott

No the parent no longer has the mental capacity to make these decisions unfortunately.  The bank account is in the parents sole name, it is not a joint account and the person living with them has no income of their own.

The family concerns are that the person living there (who is now over 60) has no income (and therefore unable to pay bills etc on the property), mental health issues (which frequently manifests in the form of hoarding - rubbish picked up from the streets, old food etc etc) and appears to have been 'conned' out of their inheritance from their own parents estate by siblings so no assets of any form 

There is obviously a concern that the home will fall into an even greater state of disrepair than it is in currently.  The parent has said in the past that if they had to go into care then they would want the house sold to pay for it and that their cohabitor would need to go and live with a sibling

BrynNormanCott

Mark_d

Thank you.  No they have no say, they are not named as next of kin and are not on any of the utility bills.  Parent has always described this person as their lodger on every document ie census and never as partner, although in reality that is what they were/are

I know it sounds as if the family is being callous in wanting this person gone from the property, but ultimately it is both want the parent wanted if such a situation should arise and better for them to live with their own family as they do need taking care of themselves to a certain degree 

elsien

Do you  have a social worker involved at the moment (if yes, then put this on their radar)  and do you know if the partner has any professional support - social worker, community mental health worker etc? 
You can  have the bank account frozen by reporting parent has lost capacity. You could also report the unathourised use of the account as a financial safeguarding to the local authority.
As things stand the bills aren't going to get paid anyway (unless on direct debit) because no-one has the legal authority to access her money, her information or make financial decisions on her behalf. In the interim someone could apply to be her appointee for her state pension and attendance allowance (if she will be a self-funder) and have that paid into a different account so that she has some access to  money and it's a lot quicker than a deputyship.
You also don't have legal authority to throw anyone out of her house and this is where things could get very messy.

It may be quicker and kinder to look at what support is available for him - application for benefits in his own right, support to contact the council for housing etc as he would qualify as a vulnerable adult, either directly or via anyone who he does have in his support network. Even paying him to leave if you thought that would work? Don't presume that his family would be willing to take on housing and supporting him - many would not. 

Unfortunately by not doing an LPA, parent has left you in a position where your options are very limited until the deputyship comes through so looking at alternatives to any legal routes is going to be more effective. You can issue all the notices you like but you can't make him leave as things stand because you don't have that authority. 
And you could of course also raise a safeguarding about him to the local authority with regards to your concerns about his ability to look after himself and the hoarding issues? They would not be able share any confidential information but they would be obliged to follow it up. 

BrynNormanCott

Thank you Elsien, some useful information there which I will pass on.  As an In law I don't have the 'clout' to get things sorted with social services, the bank etc so I am gathering information to pass onto the family to act upon and I am getting things in order for the them to understand, and start the process to apply for the deputyship.  This way they can concentrate on their parent while I do the donkey work

Mark_d

The partner was presumably not name on utility bills because the partner was neither the homeowner nor someone with money to pay the bills.

Some people from older generations, and from some cultural/religious backgrounds, choose not to use the word partner for various reasons - maybe they feel it would be disrespectful to their dead spouse.

It sounds odd that the parent would have wanted the partner kicking out of the house.  I don't suppose you know how long the parents and their partner had been living together.  The longer they've been together, the more the court would rule in their favour.

elsien

BrynNormanCott said:

Thank you Elsien, some useful information there which I will pass on.  As an In law I don't have the 'clout' to get things sorted with social services, the bank etc so I am gathering information to pass onto the family to act upon and I am getting things in order for the them to understand, and start the process to apply for the deputyship.  This way they can concentrate on their parent while I do the donkey work

No, I understand that.  I was just being lazy by typing "you."
I don't know what the current timescales are but deputyships were taking upwards of 12 months, just so everyone is aware. No sale can be considered before that. 

BrynNormanCott

Mark-d

The term was used as the parent was fearful of losing certain pensions etc if the relationship was considered officially.  This person would always be introduced to strangers as 'my friend'.

They didn't want the partner to stay in the house because they knew that it would soon become full of 'stuff' and that no bills etc would be paid and the place would literally fall down around their ears

lincroft1710

Unless the "partner" starts knocking down internal structural walls or pulling up floorboards or removing staircases and chimney breasts or fails to have missing roof tiles replaced the place would not "literally fall down around their ears". Hoarding loads of newspapers/magazines may create a fire hazard however or if of an extremely excessive weight may cause floorboards and timber joists to collapse