Is having to sell your home to pay for care legally enforcable?

[Dave63]

These are the sort of questions that pop into my head when I'm lying awake at night

Is there anything written in law that allows LA's to force people to sell their assests in order to pay for their care? I know there is the upper/lower limits for savings etc, but is there an actual law that states that if a person is above the upper limit they have to sell their home.

What would happen if a person refused to sell their home? In other situations such as mortgage defaults, bankruptcy, repossession etc, there is, I would imagine, quite complex legal hoops to be jumped through in order for them to get their hands on your property. Is it the same for the funding of social and nursing care?

 

[nitram]

is there an actual law that states that if a person is above the upper limit they have to sell their home.

No there is no need to release cash for care fees, if assets are below the upper limit the LA start contributing to care costs and regard the home as an asset to be sold and proceeds used to fund care.

I think the LA may be able to use a Compulsory Purchase Order or in extreme apply for a Court Order to sell the property to pay the increasing debt being incurred by the LA.

 

[Cinnamon009]

I'm not sure you are asking the right question.

Unless the property is disregarded then the value of the property is included in the calculation of your assets and the amount you have to pay for your care includes this value. So the amount you pay won't stop when your cash reaches below the threshold but when the amount including the value of the house does.

So the question is - can you afford to pay the care fee bills without selling the home? You can apply for the property deferred payment scheme which will defer the payment until a later agreed point. But without this you will be receiving demands for payments/bailiffs etc which might result in them applying for compulsory purchase order.

If you don't want to sell not sure why you just wouldn't apply for the property deferred payment scheme? The bills are going to be coming in otherwise with ongoing enforcement action.

 

[sue31]

These are the sort of questions that pop into my head when I'm lying awake at night

Is there anything written in law that allows LA's to force people to sell their assests in order to pay for their care? I know there is the upper/lower limits for savings etc, but is there an actual law that states that if a person is above the upper limit they have to sell their home.

What would happen if a person refused to sell their home? In other situations such as mortgage defaults, bankruptcy, repossession etc, there is, I would imagine, quite complex legal hoops to be jumped through in order for them to get their hands on your property. Is it the same for the funding of social and nursing care?

It all depends on so many circumstances.
Do you/anyone else live at the property? What is your relationship to the sufferer?
Is there a mortgage? Who pays it?
Has a diagnosis been made? Is there any LPA?
Has there been a best interests meeting with social workers?
Are the LA involved?
Have you had a CHC assessment? If so have they done a means test?

Like I say so many things to answer before you get to the answer you’re looking for.

 

[Dave63]

I'm not sure you are asking the right question.

You're absolutely correct. I worded it really poorly.

I suppose what I was wondering was is it a legal right for LA's to recover the costs for social/residential or nursing care from the person receiving that care? And if they do have that legal right then where is this right set out? I'm not thinking about the 'if you can afford it you should pay' aspect, just whether the LA's have a legal mechanism for recovery of costs.

Section 14 of the Care Act 2014, states that LA's may charge for any services provided and that it is up to each LA to determine what the level of charges should be which seems a bit wishy washy if it's a legal framework. So, is the Care Act the legal mechanism used by LA's to ensure that people contribute?

Interesting fact - the Care Act states that the only service a LA can't charge for is when a person is receiving care for Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease - aka, mad cow disease.

 

[Rayreadynow]

Some estimates seem to indicate it only affects 50,000 people every year.

 

[MaNaAk]

It all depends on so many circumstances.
Do you/anyone else live at the property? What is your relationship to the sufferer?
Is there a mortgage? Who pays it?
Has a diagnosis been made? Is there any LPA?
Has there been a best interests meeting with social workers?
Are the LA involved?
Have you had a CHC assessment? If so have they done a means test?

Like I say so many things to answer before you get to the answer you’re looking for.

Also are you over 60?

 

[Rayreadynow]

Just imagine the outcry there would be if the NHS put a charge on peoples property when/if they had to use an NHS service. This system is unsustainable.

 

[Collywobbles]

Just imagine the outcry there would be if the NHS put a charge on peoples property when/if they had to use an NHS service. This system is unsustainable.

Well the privatisation of the NHS is a key goal for the current government, so I wouldn’t rule it out.

Plus the system is unsustainable from a generational point of view. My parents own their own home, as do I and my sister. But my nephews are in their 20s and have no chance of ever being able to buy property. They won’t have anything to inherit, as it’s likely that the properties and assets of the two generations above them, will be swallowed by care costs.

My family - on both my father and mother’s sides - routinely live into their 90s, but spend the last 10-20 years of their lives needing ever more intensive care and support.

The system will inevitably collapse when it reaches the generation who’ll have nothing left to plunder.

 

[jay6]

I think this is a question we all worry about as it is so unclear. With a bit of luck someone with legal knowledge may see the post and advice.

 

[Dave63]

I think this is a question we all worry about as it is so unclear. With a bit of luck someone with legal knowledge may see the post and advice.

Yeah, I hope so.

We all know the funding process of a person requiring social, health or nursing care in this country but I can't for the life of me pin down the legal apparatus used to essentially strip a person of their assets in order to pay for it. Has it always been that way?

The care act 2014 seems extremely opaque about a LA's right to expect a contribution towards costs with words such as 'may' charge or the fact it's up to them how much they can charge.

I was just wondering what would happen if I needed care in the future and I refused to hand over my house to pay for that care, do I get taken to court, and if so, what legal gubbins does the LA produce to prove they have a right to sieze my property?

 

[Dave63]

Just imagine the outcry there would be if the NHS put a charge on peoples property when/if they had to use an NHS service. This system is unsustainable.

I think there will come a time when, once a persons needs are established, a financial assessment will be done to establish whether you should contribute towards the service you receive.

Break a leg and you'll get it fixed but you'll have to pay for bed and breakfast in hospital and for getting taken to the toilet because they're not health needs. Pretty much what happens with the elderly now.

 

[Female1952]

Yes, it is legally enforceable although I'm not sure often it gets that far. If the LA establishes that there is a debt, having previously done a financial assessment, the LA applies to the County Court.
With regard to the Care Act 2014, as well as the Act itself there are Annexes and Regulations that apply. I haven't read them in their entirety but I know this is how laws are often set out.

 

[Sonya1]

Well the privatisation of the NHS is a key goal for the current government, so I wouldn’t rule it out.

Plus the system is unsustainable from a generational point of view. My parents own their own home, as do I and my sister. But my nephews are in their 20s and have no chance of ever being able to buy property. They won’t have anything to inherit, as it’s likely that the properties and assets of the two generations above them, will be swallowed by care costs.

My family - on both my father and mother’s sides - routinely live into their 90s, but spend the last 10-20 years of their lives needing ever more intensive care and support.

The system will inevitably collapse when it reaches the generation who’ll have nothing left to plunder.

You make a really good point here. When property ownership becomes an unattainable dream for the majority, there will indeed be nothing left to feed the vultures! I must be honest, our young adult children, witnessing the hoo-ha that is the funding nightmare for people like their grandfather, are already wondering whether it is even worth 'having anything' that can be taken off them in later life!

 

[jay6]

You make a really good point here. When property ownership becomes an unattainable dream for the majority, there will indeed be nothing left to feed the vultures! I must be honest, our young adult children, witnessing the hoo-ha that is the funding nightmare for people like their grandfather, are already wondering whether it is even worth 'having anything' that can be taken off them in later life!

I've often heard 'If I have nothing, they can't take it away' quite a lot lately by the young generation and don't blame them for thinking that. I've started to wish I'd never gone without to saved for a better retirement. I can't even see why care homes are so expensive.

 

[nita]

You can't necessarily calculate whether you will need care in the future and plan (or not) accordingly. Many people die without any need for long term care.

 

[albo]

Yeah, I hope so.

We all know the funding process of a person requiring social, health or nursing care in this country but I can't for the life of me pin down the legal apparatus used to essentially strip a person of their assets in order to pay for it. Has it always been that way?

The care act 2014 seems extremely opaque about a LA's right to expect a contribution towards costs with words such as 'may' charge or the fact it's up to them how much they can charge.

I was just wondering what would happen if I needed care in the future and I refused to hand over my house to pay for that care, do I get taken to court, and if so, what legal gubbins does the LA produce to prove they have a right to sieze my property?

That's an interesting question really and it's like having a tax on dementia as if you're sound of mind you would be able to fight your corner but once you've lost your capacity you've lost your voice, then the house is sold if your funds have gone! That's just my take on things

 

[northumbrian_k]

The link below may answer some of the questions raised in this thread. My reading of the statement that a Local Authority 'may' charge for dementia care is that it has the right to and will do so. It also has the right to pursue costs from anyone who doesn't go along with this.

Paying for dementia care in England

Dementia care isn't free, and you may need to pay for some of the care you or someone you know needs. We help you understand the different ways to pay for care, and the amount you might be expected to pay.

www.alzheimers.org.uk

 

[SAP]

I think in simplified terms if the LA financial assessment states that a person has the funds to pay for residential care then the LA themselves won’t pay for it. If a person is deemed unsafe to live on their own for example even with a care package then the LA can enforce care home placements under the mental capacity act via the COP. This then puts the LA in the position of needing to pay for care in the first instance if there is not sufficient funds avaliable and they can then claim these funds back by selling assets which they will have taken responsibility for via deputyship and the COP. This , of course would be for a person with no family with LPA and providing that the property is not being lived in by someone who falls in the categories of disregard for property. So it’s not just one piece of legislation but several that would back up the LAs right to recoup their losses.

 

[Dave63]

The link below may answer some of the questions raised in this thread. My reading of the statement that a Local Authority 'may' charge for dementia care is that it has the right to and will do so. It also has the right to pursue costs from anyone who doesn't go along with this.

Paying for dementia care in England

Dementia care isn't free, and you may need to pay for some of the care you or someone you know needs. We help you understand the different ways to pay for care, and the amount you might be expected to pay.

www.alzheimers.org.uk

Thanks for the link @northumbrian_k.

The section which asks 'What if a person refuses to pay for their care' says this:

The person’s local authority has a legal duty to meet their eligible care needs. If the person does not have mental capacity and refuses to pay for their care costs, the local authority cannot withdraw the service.
They would therefore be expected to continue to meet the person’s needs, while attempting to resolve any dispute.
Sometimes the person does have mental capacity but refuses to pay. In this case, the local authority still has a duty to meet their needs. This may be necessary if the person would be unsafe without support. The local authority may pursue court action to recover any debt that the person owes. (bold font is mine)

It also explains that the 'rules' about paying for care are set out in the Care Act 2014. If you read the relevant section of the Care Act it only says that LA's may charge and that they can make their own decisions on the levels of charges. That doesn't sound like a legal authority to pursue people through the courts.

So, when I'm older and grumpier and I have less than £14,250 in savings but I have a house and I end up in court for refusing to sell my property to pay for care, what would the judge be expecting to see from the LA lawyers with regard to proving I have the obligation to sell my property to pay for care?

Just to be clear, I'm not questioning who should or should not pay for their care, that's a different debate. I'm just curious as to what legal authority or mechanism LA's can use to lay claim to a persons property. It can't be the Care Act as that is so vague about the rules it would probably get thrown out by a judge within the first five minutes.

I'm sure some people will think what's up with this guy? He needs a high five, in the head, with a bed pan