ChatterBank0 min ago
My mother wants me to join her in her bungalow.
I have just had early retirement in London and my mother has a 4 bedroom bungalow 20 miles away near a main line rail station into London.
I have my own house in London and was left my fathers share when he passed away just over 2 years ago. We are tennants in common with equal shares.
Mum wants me to sell my house and join her in the bungalow.
She has said there is no sense of having the expense of 2 properties, I will be an owner occupier of the bungalow and it only takes about 45 minutes to get into London by train to see friends etc.
My main concern is my mother is now 86 and I will be 60 in June.
I have looked at Age Concern Factsheet 38 and it appears from that I could not be thrown out if Mum has to go into care as I will have the right to occupy the property and because of this the value of her share will be almost nil due to my owner occupation.
I have then looked at another factsheet which goes on about deprivation of assetts to avoid care home fees.
At present Mum is in very good health for her age and I have no reason to think she will need residential or nursing care.
Unfortunately I have a friend who's father looked OK in March 2011 and by December he was in a nursing home.
If something like this happens could Social Services take the bungalow off me on the grounds of Deprivation of Assetts.
Jane
I have my own house in London and was left my fathers share when he passed away just over 2 years ago. We are tennants in common with equal shares.
Mum wants me to sell my house and join her in the bungalow.
She has said there is no sense of having the expense of 2 properties, I will be an owner occupier of the bungalow and it only takes about 45 minutes to get into London by train to see friends etc.
My main concern is my mother is now 86 and I will be 60 in June.
I have looked at Age Concern Factsheet 38 and it appears from that I could not be thrown out if Mum has to go into care as I will have the right to occupy the property and because of this the value of her share will be almost nil due to my owner occupation.
I have then looked at another factsheet which goes on about deprivation of assetts to avoid care home fees.
At present Mum is in very good health for her age and I have no reason to think she will need residential or nursing care.
Unfortunately I have a friend who's father looked OK in March 2011 and by December he was in a nursing home.
If something like this happens could Social Services take the bungalow off me on the grounds of Deprivation of Assetts.
Jane
Answers
1 to 13 of 13
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by JaneGray. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It is a worry and you are sensible to think about this before you move in with your Mother. The house will not be considered capital for 12 weeks after your Mother had to move in to a home and will not be treated as an asset if there is someone of 60 or over living there, so you should be OK from June.
I am pleased your Mother enjoys good health but she may like to consider claiming attendance allowance, which does not mean she has to have a helper, if she is a little slow with normal things she may qualify.
I am pleased your Mother enjoys good health but she may like to consider claiming attendance allowance, which does not mean she has to have a helper, if she is a little slow with normal things she may qualify.
Hi Jane
I do know of a case where a son inherited his mother share of his parents house when he was in his early 40's and his father was in his mid 60's.
His father was taken into a nursing home 18 years later and the house was worth about £400,000 but the father had very little in the way of cash.
Social Services did ask the son to downsize but he knew his rights and refused and Social Services were liable for most of the fees.
Sadly his father has now passed away and the son inherited the house in full.
My impression was the father had money when the son joined him in the house as he always had cars under 3 years old and private health insurance and always had nice clothes / holidays so the fathers money was used over time.
In fairness to the son however I know he paid for his fathers last car change which was better than the son's as the fathers car was automatic and the son's was manual and he paid for the fathers private health insurance when his money ran out.
The difference between your case and the one I have just mentioned is the father was in his mid 60's at the time and in no way could the nursing home be anticipated at that stage.
I am just wandering by virtue of the fact your mother is 86 and you join her shortly if she was taken into care today the house would have to be sold and half the proceeds used towards her care but if you move in you would become an owner occupier then in theory it could not be sold but Social Services may argue deprivation of assetts has happened because the chances of her having to go into care are a lot higher than somebody in their 60's.
Another point I have noticed is you are coming up to 60 and a close relative so this is another reason why you could not be thrown out but I am not sure what would happen to the ownership.
I think you need to see a solicitor who is an expert in care fees law.
Martin
I do know of a case where a son inherited his mother share of his parents house when he was in his early 40's and his father was in his mid 60's.
His father was taken into a nursing home 18 years later and the house was worth about £400,000 but the father had very little in the way of cash.
Social Services did ask the son to downsize but he knew his rights and refused and Social Services were liable for most of the fees.
Sadly his father has now passed away and the son inherited the house in full.
My impression was the father had money when the son joined him in the house as he always had cars under 3 years old and private health insurance and always had nice clothes / holidays so the fathers money was used over time.
In fairness to the son however I know he paid for his fathers last car change which was better than the son's as the fathers car was automatic and the son's was manual and he paid for the fathers private health insurance when his money ran out.
The difference between your case and the one I have just mentioned is the father was in his mid 60's at the time and in no way could the nursing home be anticipated at that stage.
I am just wandering by virtue of the fact your mother is 86 and you join her shortly if she was taken into care today the house would have to be sold and half the proceeds used towards her care but if you move in you would become an owner occupier then in theory it could not be sold but Social Services may argue deprivation of assetts has happened because the chances of her having to go into care are a lot higher than somebody in their 60's.
Another point I have noticed is you are coming up to 60 and a close relative so this is another reason why you could not be thrown out but I am not sure what would happen to the ownership.
I think you need to see a solicitor who is an expert in care fees law.
Martin
I think martin that there is no problem more than one person saying a similar or even the same thing, it proves that wise minds (or experience) think alike and may give some comfort to the questioner.
The fact that you said more than me may have more to do with the timing of our posts then your typing speeds.
The fact that you said more than me may have more to do with the timing of our posts then your typing speeds.
Hi Martin / Tony / Jane
I hope your mother never has to go into a nursing home but as Tony says you are wise to consider this now.
Both Tony and Martin are correct in what they have said.
I must warn you you may have to stand your ground with Social Services.
A friend of mine was a tennant in common with her mother and had been caring for her mother for just over 6 years living in what was her parents house. The daughter had inherited the fathers share.
It got to the point where the mother become beyond home care and the daughter had to call an ambulance 3 days before her 60th birthday.
The mother was in hospital for 90 days and the daughter was obviously 60 when the interview with the Social Worker took place.
The social worker argued that as her mother had medical problems for 7 years and as this was part of the reason for the daughter coming to live at the house after selling her own house deprivation of assetts had happened. Yes the mother did have medical problems at the time the daughter joined her but they were nothing to do with dementia which was the reason the mother had to go into care and there was no thought of a home at that time.
The leaflet the daughter was given stated that if a person had been a carer for a substantial time living in the patients property the property could not be counted as assetts for care home fee purposes.
The social worker said in her view 6 years was not a substantial time but would not answer what was.
The daughter then pointed out she was 60 and the social worker stated she was not 60 at the time the mother was admitted to the hospital so this did not count.
The daughter had heard of NHS funding and thought her mother should be eligible as she had very bad behaviour problems.
She had thrown a table at a nurse and a bottle of water at a visitor who happened to be a police man.
The daughter said to the social worker she was going to get a solicitor involved.
Before she even got to the solicitor the daughter received a phone call to say the evidence had been re examined and the mother was eligible for full NHS funding.
A review took place 3 months later and the nurse tried to offer social funding. Yet again the daughter said she would get a solicitor involved but the nurse gave her 3 more months of NHS funding and said get a solicitor involved if she did not qualify at that time.
After 6 months the mother had another review and it was decided she met the NHS funding criteria and was put on annual review.
Happily the mother or probably to the annoyance of the social worker the mother is still alive 4 years later and has just had another annual review and it has been decided she is entitled to full NHS funding.
A little while ago my friend passed the social worker in the street and was reminded the mother was costing the PCT a lot of money.
The daughter has given me permission to write this as she does not use the internet very much but she is starting to learn.
Amy
I hope your mother never has to go into a nursing home but as Tony says you are wise to consider this now.
Both Tony and Martin are correct in what they have said.
I must warn you you may have to stand your ground with Social Services.
A friend of mine was a tennant in common with her mother and had been caring for her mother for just over 6 years living in what was her parents house. The daughter had inherited the fathers share.
It got to the point where the mother become beyond home care and the daughter had to call an ambulance 3 days before her 60th birthday.
The mother was in hospital for 90 days and the daughter was obviously 60 when the interview with the Social Worker took place.
The social worker argued that as her mother had medical problems for 7 years and as this was part of the reason for the daughter coming to live at the house after selling her own house deprivation of assetts had happened. Yes the mother did have medical problems at the time the daughter joined her but they were nothing to do with dementia which was the reason the mother had to go into care and there was no thought of a home at that time.
The leaflet the daughter was given stated that if a person had been a carer for a substantial time living in the patients property the property could not be counted as assetts for care home fee purposes.
The social worker said in her view 6 years was not a substantial time but would not answer what was.
The daughter then pointed out she was 60 and the social worker stated she was not 60 at the time the mother was admitted to the hospital so this did not count.
The daughter had heard of NHS funding and thought her mother should be eligible as she had very bad behaviour problems.
She had thrown a table at a nurse and a bottle of water at a visitor who happened to be a police man.
The daughter said to the social worker she was going to get a solicitor involved.
Before she even got to the solicitor the daughter received a phone call to say the evidence had been re examined and the mother was eligible for full NHS funding.
A review took place 3 months later and the nurse tried to offer social funding. Yet again the daughter said she would get a solicitor involved but the nurse gave her 3 more months of NHS funding and said get a solicitor involved if she did not qualify at that time.
After 6 months the mother had another review and it was decided she met the NHS funding criteria and was put on annual review.
Happily the mother or probably to the annoyance of the social worker the mother is still alive 4 years later and has just had another annual review and it has been decided she is entitled to full NHS funding.
A little while ago my friend passed the social worker in the street and was reminded the mother was costing the PCT a lot of money.
The daughter has given me permission to write this as she does not use the internet very much but she is starting to learn.
Amy
The "bible" - CRAG - which Social Services have to (or should!) abide by is here:
http://www.dh.gov.uk/...alasset/dh_115533.pdf
Go to section 7, starting on page 41. 7.003 seems to me to make it clear that if you are over 60 when your mother has to go into care the bungalow has to be disregarded in working out your mother's entitlement to Social services help with care home fees. Further on (about 7.019 I think), there is information about the value which can be attributed to a share of a jointly owned property. This says that it could be that the share would be very little, or even nil, because there would be no willing buyer for such a share.
I do not see how deprivation of assets could come into this, as you are a joint owner of the bungalow.
Despite all this, you could still have to stand your ground with Social Services if the time comes, using whatever up to date version of CRAG is applicable at that time. Incidentally, it might be an idea for you not to move in until you are 60.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/...alasset/dh_115533.pdf
Go to section 7, starting on page 41. 7.003 seems to me to make it clear that if you are over 60 when your mother has to go into care the bungalow has to be disregarded in working out your mother's entitlement to Social services help with care home fees. Further on (about 7.019 I think), there is information about the value which can be attributed to a share of a jointly owned property. This says that it could be that the share would be very little, or even nil, because there would be no willing buyer for such a share.
I do not see how deprivation of assets could come into this, as you are a joint owner of the bungalow.
Despite all this, you could still have to stand your ground with Social Services if the time comes, using whatever up to date version of CRAG is applicable at that time. Incidentally, it might be an idea for you not to move in until you are 60.
Hi Jane
I think themas is right and it looks as if the bungalow would have to be disregarded now as it is a jointly owned property.
If you want to move into your mothers bungalow I would put your house up for sale now. By the time your house is sold you are likely to be 60 anyway.
Even if Social Services find some way to force the sale of the bungalow which I think is extremely unlikely they could not take your half and in any case you will have the proceeds from the sale of your house and I am assuming they would be sufficient funds to buy the other half of your mothers bungalow to avoid a sale.
Another point. There are proposals to change the rules in relation to care funding and at one point there were proposals to put a charge on a house to cover the cost of care even if the property was jointly owned and for the councils to take the money when the other owner dies or when the property is sold.
This could cause problems if you want to move somewhere else say after your mother passes away.
It has also been said however it would be 2016 anyway before these rules could come in anyway.
I would hope however regard would be given to joint ownership / occupation situations which started prior to any rule changes especially in situations like yours where there is a big age difference as in your case.
I think themas is right and it looks as if the bungalow would have to be disregarded now as it is a jointly owned property.
If you want to move into your mothers bungalow I would put your house up for sale now. By the time your house is sold you are likely to be 60 anyway.
Even if Social Services find some way to force the sale of the bungalow which I think is extremely unlikely they could not take your half and in any case you will have the proceeds from the sale of your house and I am assuming they would be sufficient funds to buy the other half of your mothers bungalow to avoid a sale.
Another point. There are proposals to change the rules in relation to care funding and at one point there were proposals to put a charge on a house to cover the cost of care even if the property was jointly owned and for the councils to take the money when the other owner dies or when the property is sold.
This could cause problems if you want to move somewhere else say after your mother passes away.
It has also been said however it would be 2016 anyway before these rules could come in anyway.
I would hope however regard would be given to joint ownership / occupation situations which started prior to any rule changes especially in situations like yours where there is a big age difference as in your case.
Bednobs
You said:
if jane buys the mother's half it doesn't prevent it being sold - the mum will have sold it to her
That is possible. The mother is in good health however and may be easily living in the bungalow for another 15 years.
Would the mother be happy having no ownership rights?.
Possibly not.
When I visited my mother in hospital a lady was in the opposite bed and she told me she was 69.
She said to me her mother was visiting her that evening and I thought she was confused as I know she had been given some sedation.
I came back in the evening and you can guess who was at the side of her bed. Her mother was 95 and lived in the same house as the daughter.
I do not know what happened to that woman as my mother left before her. I hope she was not discharged into a nursing home but it shows this could happen.
I know if Jane was taken into a nursing home the mother would be able to occupy the bungalow as she is over 60.
The only possible situation if Jane owned the bungalow 100% she could in theory ask her mother to leave.
You said:
if jane buys the mother's half it doesn't prevent it being sold - the mum will have sold it to her
That is possible. The mother is in good health however and may be easily living in the bungalow for another 15 years.
Would the mother be happy having no ownership rights?.
Possibly not.
When I visited my mother in hospital a lady was in the opposite bed and she told me she was 69.
She said to me her mother was visiting her that evening and I thought she was confused as I know she had been given some sedation.
I came back in the evening and you can guess who was at the side of her bed. Her mother was 95 and lived in the same house as the daughter.
I do not know what happened to that woman as my mother left before her. I hope she was not discharged into a nursing home but it shows this could happen.
I know if Jane was taken into a nursing home the mother would be able to occupy the bungalow as she is over 60.
The only possible situation if Jane owned the bungalow 100% she could in theory ask her mother to leave.
I am afraid nobody knows what changes in the law re care could happen in the future.
It is possible a new law could be made so no title to a parents house could pass to the offspring until both parents have passed away. I would think however it would be unfair to request a child to pass back his half share of the house to the surviving parent if it has passed to him / her already especially if he / she had paid some inheritance tax on the half share or spent money on the house.
Martin
It is possible a new law could be made so no title to a parents house could pass to the offspring until both parents have passed away. I would think however it would be unfair to request a child to pass back his half share of the house to the surviving parent if it has passed to him / her already especially if he / she had paid some inheritance tax on the half share or spent money on the house.
Martin
1 to 13 of 13
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.