Hi can anyone explain what is involved in this process in respect of benefits or residential care fees? My husband has only recently been diagnosed with AD and is still working as am I on part-time so to be full time basis. We have a joint bank account, an ISA each and a bond which although in our joint name holds an inheritance for our daughter left in a will to her by an Aunt. When or if my husband needs to be means tested do they base their decisions on just his finances or joint? We no longer have a mortgage & they house is jointly owned. We do not have a large amount of savings. I want to be able to concentrate on my husband and help him through the changes we are going to face without the added stress of financial problems caused by wrong decisions made early on. We are going to sort out relevant LPA & make a will each we know that is v.important.Any suggestions?
Means testing
- Thread starter Neat212
- Start date
I am bumping this up for you so that someone with more experience can answer it in more detail.
Basically, in a financial assessment, all your husbands money in his own name and half any joint account will be assessed as his. The house will be disregarded as you still live there. As he is still working, I assume he does not receive a pension, but if he did have a private pension, and had to go into care, half a private pension can be disregarded
I am not sure about the bond, but if part of it is an inheritance left to your daughter, surely it should be in her own name, so it may be wise to get that changed, but I dont know much about bonds.
Hopefully someone like nitram will advise you
Basically, in a financial assessment, all your husbands money in his own name and half any joint account will be assessed as his. The house will be disregarded as you still live there. As he is still working, I assume he does not receive a pension, but if he did have a private pension, and had to go into care, half a private pension can be disregarded
I am not sure about the bond, but if part of it is an inheritance left to your daughter, surely it should be in her own name, so it may be wise to get that changed, but I dont know much about bonds.
Hopefully someone like nitram will advise you
The bond could be held in trust for the daughter until she reaches the legal minimum inheritance age of 18, or a higher age specified by the aunt in her will, in this case it would not be included in any assessment.
If, however, the aunt left the money to the OP with an informal instruction to give it to the daughter when she gets older the LA will fight for it's inclusion probably to the extent of regarding it as deliberate deprivation of assets if given to the daughter.
If, however, the aunt left the money to the OP with an informal instruction to give it to the daughter when she gets older the LA will fight for it's inclusion probably to the extent of regarding it as deliberate deprivation of assets if given to the daughter.
It's very wise to try and get as much information as possible at this point so that you can be clear about the way paying for care can pan out, but do bear in mind that, as your husband has only just been diagnosed and is still able to work, it may be quite a few years before any paid for care is required.
As far as benefits are concerned, the Personal Independent Payment (PIP) is, like the DLA and AA it replaces, non means-tested.
As far as benefits are concerned, the Personal Independent Payment (PIP) is, like the DLA and AA it replaces, non means-tested.
Last edited:
When making your wills consider the ownership of your house.
You say it is jointly owned.
There are two types of joint ownership.
As joint tenants.
On the death of one of the owners the property passes to the other owner(s) outside of any will. This means that if one of you was in care and was predeceased by the other the whole property would pass to the person in care regardless of any bequest in the will.
As tenants in common
On the death of one of the owners half the property is owned by the survivor and half is part of the deceased estate. This means that half can be passed on to a person other than the survivor, eg your daughter, you may or may not want this to happen. There is also the argument about the value of half a house in any financial assessment.
The type of tenancy can be changed, from joint to tenants in common is simple but the other way is more complicated.
You say it is jointly owned.
There are two types of joint ownership.
As joint tenants.
On the death of one of the owners the property passes to the other owner(s) outside of any will. This means that if one of you was in care and was predeceased by the other the whole property would pass to the person in care regardless of any bequest in the will.
As tenants in common
On the death of one of the owners half the property is owned by the survivor and half is part of the deceased estate. This means that half can be passed on to a person other than the survivor, eg your daughter, you may or may not want this to happen. There is also the argument about the value of half a house in any financial assessment.
The type of tenancy can be changed, from joint to tenants in common is simple but the other way is more complicated.
If I'm reading the OP correctly the bond is in the parent's name only and the daughter's money is in their bond without her name being on the bond.
Is it likely the LA would accept this and disregard the daughter's element of the bond even thought it's not "documented" for want of a better work?
K
In terms of deprivation of assets issues, there is presumably some sort of legal papertrail about the money that is intended for your daughter from the aunt? Or was this an informal arrangement? Is there anything written to demonstrate the aunt's wishes?
I have seen previously an example of someone being found to have NOT deprived themselves of their assets by buying a grandchild a car because they had given a birthday card many years previously which suggested "when you are 21 I will purchase you a car" or something to that effect.
If you can show the true intent of holding or spending money in this kind of way, particularly if it was before the onset of a condition like dementia, then this can help have that money/asset disregarded.
I have seen previously an example of someone being found to have NOT deprived themselves of their assets by buying a grandchild a car because they had given a birthday card many years previously which suggested "when you are 21 I will purchase you a car" or something to that effect.
If you can show the true intent of holding or spending money in this kind of way, particularly if it was before the onset of a condition like dementia, then this can help have that money/asset disregarded.
