Over 60 resident relative. How to avoid losing the family home to care home fees

Options
12357…12

Comments

  • nigelbb
    nigelbb Posts: 3,790 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Silvertabby wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will !) but am I right in thinking that if the Council does accept OP as a legitimate occupant, then they won't just say 'oh well, that's the end of that' - or will they put a charge on the house so that they will be able to recover mum's care home fees once the property is actually sold - for whatever reason?
    The council cannot put a charge on the house otherwise it would negate the whole point of having a mandatory disregard of the value of the house. A relative over 60 in residence is in exactly the same position as a spouse in the matrimonial home. The value of the house if occupied by a spouse (or relative over 60) cannot be taken into account when assessing whether any contribution towards care should be made.
  • lisyloo
    lisyloo Posts: 29,617 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    Silvertabby wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong (and I'm sure someone will !) but am I right in thinking that if the Council does accept OP as a legitimate occupant, then they won't just say 'oh well, that's the end of that' - or will they put a charge on the house so that they will be able to recover mum's care home fees once the property is actually sold - for whatever reason?


    You’re wrong.
    If they accept the OP is a legitimate occupant then the property value is disregarded in full.

    Any other personal assets above £14250 and income will be taken into account.
    Everyone has at least £160 income e.g. state pension, pension credit. This would be taken bar approx £25 which she can keep for personal expenses e.g. toiletries, clothing etc.

    So actually no one gets for free. The cheapest is approx £135 as minimum income is £160 (approx).

    A charge on a home becomes relevant if (for example) they decide the OP is not a legitimate occupant and the lady is self funding but has no liquid funds.
    This scenario often occurs when a legitimate occupant such as a spouse dies.
    In this case the council offer a loan called a deferred payment agreement whilst the property is sold.
    Your choices are pay or agree to the loan.
    In most cases they will put a charge on the property.
    I did this recently and they didn’t put a charge on because a sale was in progress but they still wanted the paperwork in place in case things changed.
  • Silvertabby
    Silvertabby Posts: 9,024 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Options
    Thank you all !
  • MightyWhitey
    MightyWhitey Posts: 15 Forumite
    edited 11 September 2019 at 2:32PM
    Options
    Spreadsheetman wrote: »
    It looks on the face of it that if you were genuinely living there as your list indicates plus providing some level of care/assistance then you'd pass the criteria.

    I can't guess whether your local council would dig deeper in some way & find grounds to refuse, or whether it is even a good idea on a personal level. I don't see how you could know for sure until you tried it.
    Yes, i see this. The problem is that there is wiggle room for * discretion * in the Council's favour. ie if you don't like our discretionary decision subject to our interpretation of the guidelines / law, we'll take the house and you can fight it through a solicitor / court.

    What I'm finding is that the guidelines commented on here and from various sources in black and white. It's the discretionary angle I'm worried about.

    But i tend to acknowledge your point - we won't know until the time comes ( if it does ).

    It would be good if someone chimed in who is either a council assessor or has been through this - but it may still revert to the above points you mention IMO
  • mrschaucer
    mrschaucer Posts: 953 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    MightyWhitey wrote: »
    Yes, i see this. The problem is that there is wiggle room for * discretion * in the Council's favour.

    Surely not. Why would there be "wiggle room for discretion" in a mandatory disregard?
  • lisyloo
    lisyloo Posts: 29,617 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    mrschaucer wrote: »
    Surely not. Why would there be "wiggle room for discretion" in a mandatory disregard?

    Because deliberate deprivation applies (not saying it is in this case just saying it applies).

    Same as the lady couldn’t give away her home to her offspring and then claim state benefits. Technically the house isn’t hers in that scenario but deliberate deprivation rules apply.
  • MightyWhitey
    MightyWhitey Posts: 15 Forumite
    edited 11 September 2019 at 3:38PM
    Options
    mrschaucer wrote: »
    Surely not. Why would there be "wiggle room for discretion" in a mandatory disregard?
    Because the law is not specific on every circumstance. Interpretation comes into play, leading to discretion, which is why lawyers have a job and courts make decisions.

    Pre empting the worst case scenario with well founded plans and actions, may help. But I'm with the views above now, being "who knows until it happens". Just do your best.
  • mrschaucer
    mrschaucer Posts: 953 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    lisyloo wrote: »
    Because deliberate deprivation applies (not saying it is in this case just saying it applies).

    Same as the lady couldn’t give away her home to her offspring and then claim state benefits. Technically the house isn’t hers in that scenario but deliberate deprivation rules apply.

    Yes, I understand this.
    But if the mandatory disregard is that "the house will not be taken into account if a relative over 60 lives there", why should that be suddenly seen as discretionary instead of mandatory? As opposed to "the house will not be taken into account if a spouse lives there" being accepted by all as being purely mandatory and not open to question?
    It doesn't seem very logical.
  • lisyloo
    lisyloo Posts: 29,617 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    mrschaucer wrote: »
    Yes, I understand this.
    But if the mandatory disregard is that "the house will not be taken into account if a relative over 60 lives there", why should that be suddenly seen as discretionary instead of mandatory? As opposed to "the house will not be taken into account if a spouse lives there" being accepted by all as being purely mandatory and not open to question?
    It doesn't seem very logical.

    It’s not discretionary.
    If the requirements are validly and properly met then it’s mandatory.

    but the requirements can be faked e.g. fake marriage.

    Why on earth would it not be open to question?
    If that was the case lots of people would get married the day before or give away their property to their offspring.

    Like all state benefits the requirements need to met properly.

    If you are a tax payer why are you calling this into question?
    Are you proposing we just let everyone have all the state benefits they want to claim for without questioning any application?
  • mrschaucer
    mrschaucer Posts: 953 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    You seem to be misunderstanding what I'm saying.
    We agree that once OP sufficiently proves he lives at the address then the disregard should become mandatory. But the OP seems to fear that DESPITE all his proof, the council will still have "wiggle room" to deny the disregard and regard it as discretionary.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 248K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards