Don't be forced into paying a care home top-up, please read.

[jenniferpa]

Chris went through this some time ago about whether this mobile home was considered to be a chattel (like furniture) or property. Turned out it was considered to be a chattel *edited: actually a moveable asset. Let me see if I can find her old thread.

Here is is http://forum.alzheimers.org.uk/showthread.php?t=15062&highlight=mobile+home

Not trying to make your life even more difficult than it is, but you should perhaps try to find out if a legal charge could be placed on this chalet. If it can't then it can't be counted.

 

[Saffie]

I've got a feeling the difference lies in the word 'mobile'. My chalet , although little biggger than a mobile home and on a holiday site, is actually a building. It is leasehold but we don't pay any ground rent and pay Council tax to the local authority although we get a slight rebate on this.

When I spoke to my SW about the fact that SS won't help with funding as my husband will be over the upper threshold thanks to owning half the chalet but that he won't actually have any money to pay fees until it is sold, I did say that surely, this must happen often. She replied that no, it didn't as if it was a touring caravan it would be different so perhaps that applies to a mobile home too.Therein might lie the problem.

We were already advertising it for sale before my husband went into hospital for the amputation which made his dementia increase so rapidly, as we've hardly been down to it in last couple of years and it needs some attention. As I said, I found a buyer thinking it wsas solely mine, but everything went haywire once the conveyancer said that it was jointly owned. I need to sell anyway as I will need the funds for these large topups.
Which is, I think where I came in ! Not sure now though as I seem to be following 2 threads, as you are Jennifer, which cover similar problems! I'm very glad you are as you have been very helpful - thank you.

 

[jenniferpa]

What the LA can do is offer a deferred payment scheme until the chalet is sold. They will in that case place a charge against the chalet (on not more than 50% of its market value) and then recoup that when it is sold.

Please Saffie - try not to worry about this too much - the reality is that the LA will have to wait until you have that deputyship and can sell that capital asset (the chalet). Despite what may have been said, this happens quite frequently when a couple own a holiday home, or property that has tenants in it. Whatever you do, do not be bullied into paying until that property has been sold. There are mechanisms to cope with this and your LA should make use of them before coming to you for money.

 

[JPG1]

Saffie,

You need to take legal advice on the precise definition of your 'chalet', and whether your 'chalet' can be completely disregarded for CRAG purposes.

You must not take seriously anything that your SW says to you about all of this. It sounds as though your SW has already led you astray with her talk of top-up fees (which I do not agree with, and I do genuinely believe that you are being ill-informed there, but that's another thought!). So please take further advice.

Your SW is not a qualified legal person, any more than most of us on this TP are. We can all read CRAG until we're blue in the face, but there are still legal definitions that your SW - and most of us mere mortal TPers - cannot begin to understand.

In England, one 'site' - which is where your holiday thingy-dwelling is sited - may call it a 'chalet'.

But another 'holiday site' may call it a 'log cabin'.

As in the New Forest for example - doesn't mean that the 'cabin' is a genuine cabin; nor that it is necessarily built from genuine logs; just the way it's described by the site, in order to attract business and holiday-punters.

And a 'mobile caravan site' does not imply that all the caravans sited there are mobile. There's a very well-established site within walking distance of my own home, but not one of the 'chalets' or 'mobile caravans' has moved in the last 30 years. There is not a chance in hell of anyone being able to site there a traditionally 'mobile caravan'. But it's still called a 'mobile caravan site'.

And any ill-informed social worker could give me bum advice about any single chalet, cabin, caravan sited there. And if your SW is talking about 'touring caravans', it sounds to me that you need to ask questions elsewhere - but not of your SW.

 

[ChrisH]

Back again - 4 mth old grandson has colic and have been helping to get him to sleep; poor little chap spent 1.5 hrs yelling his head off.

Saffie, mum's mobile (or 'park' home as they call them now) isn't considered to be part of her assets for funding purposes because she doesn't own the land it stands on and pays ground rent. It could in theory be moved as they come in 2 halves on trailers and are bolted together on site. Most people then brick up the sides to conceal the trailer and make them look like normal bungalows. Your chalet sounds different but perhaps it would be an idea to find out if it was constructed on site or whether it was prefabricated and trailered to the site, in which case you might argue that it isn't a fixed structure and perhaps wouldn't therefore count.

I was also told that if it was eventually sold and therefore mum became self-funding, I would be able to reclaim what I had paid in top-ups, so long as it didn't amount to more than the upper savings limit. The SW apparently checked that with their legal department. Of course that doesn't help in the short term as I've still had to find the money up front. I wonder if that is the case with all LAs. Has anyone else been able to do that?

Chris

 

[BeckHux]

I do feel for all of you on here. My situation seems incredibly difficult and I haven't got the added problem of assets and partial self-funding.

Good luck Saffie I hope you get somewhere, and have to agree that you need legal advice - my Dad's social worker and CPN openly admitted that they have no idea regarding any of the legal needs and top-up issues I have challenged them with.

I am now waiting until Tuesday morning when I know it's all going to start again, it's been lovely having a couple of days of kids rugby to take my mind off it all!

To make matters worse, my sisters and Mum have visited the two nearest homes to Mum that would take Dad and they are both perfect for him and have vacancies.

We are adament that we are not going to allow them to isolate him 22 miles away from friends and family, I know that we are going to hae to really fight to prove that they are ignoring his 'need to be near family'.

 

[Saffie]

Thank you all again for your advice. I did write this post over an hour ago then had to go out and obviously pressed a wrong key!
Jennifer, yes, I will have to wait until the chalet is sold to release any money simply because, without the money from that sale, my husband cannot pay the fees himself. The SW left a message on the phone on Thursday to say she had spoken to her manager who had said not to worry over the weekend and that they'd work something out - either a loan or deferred payment or whatever. What is in our current account won't cover more than a few days at the rates around here!

Chris, yes, the chalet was erected on site - way back in the 70's,so I think it definitely is a building. Even though it is leasehold, we don't pay ground rent.Some owners have bought the freehold but we all pay maintenance costs for the grass cutting etc regardless of whether free or leasehold.

JPG, yes, I'm familiar with the New Forest log cabins as I live very near by but surely, they are built on site too. As I've said above, I think the chalet has to be classed as an asset. I've accepted that. (Though I will try to ascertain this) even though I was aghast when I realised it was jointly owned - heaven knows why we thought it was in my name only. We bought it with a legacy I had - £10,000- 10 years ago and I guess we must have signed the Land Registry form or something - the memory is hazy now. The SS assessor who came to the house to complete the assessment form did say that if I could prove that it was bought with my inheritance, the could disregard that part of it, but that is impossible to do. It was bought a year later anyway and how can one prove that this is what the money was spent on. I rather wish we'd spent the money on something else now as it's proving such a problem, what with having to become a deputy and finding a trustee for the sale, all costing loads,as well as all this bother of it taking my husband temporarily over the higher threshold - but what's done is done and there's no going back now I guess.

As I said previously, I think I would have had to sell anyway as it is deteriorating and the annual upkeep was a bit of a drain, so I am trying to be philosophical about it even though it is galling to be giving half the sale money to SS's. Well, to the nursing home in reality but it amounts to the same thing! At least the cost of becoming a deputy will hopefully deplete it a bit!

Thanks again for all your support - as I said on the other thread - I am so glad I found you all.

 

[Saffie]

Just another thought, having read Chris's old message linked by Jennifer - if the chalet is classed as residential, is it vaguely possible the 12 week disregard might apply even though it is not my husband's main residence? It's just that this would solve, or at least help, the fact that until it's sold there will be no money to pay the home. A shade too optimistic perhaps?!

 

[jenniferpa]

I think that is too optimistic Saffie, and I'm sorry. The 12 week disregard only applies when a person's primary residence is to be sold.

You know, I would be inclined though to consider more carefully having the thing entirely excluded as an asset if you purchased it with inherited money. A year is nothing when it comes to inheritances and what to do with them. I would think that all you had to do is show that you had £10000 (or more) come into your possession from a will and then you subsequently spent £10000 on this chalet. It's not as if you have to use marked bills in this situation - you were willed the money, you spent the money.

 

[Saffie]

Thought so but thanks. I will find a copy of my Aunt's will and see if it is of any help. She left me the £10 thousand and we paid £11 and a half for it so it was mainly my money. Still, it is in both names but worth a try I guess.

 

[JPG1]

Saffie,

Don't worry if you can't find a copy of your Aunt's will. It is now a public document, so anyone can get a copy of it, if they pay the required fee. That includes the SS or the LA or the PCT or anyone interested.

All you will need to do - if you can't find your own copy - is to give 'whoever' your Aunt's name and approximate date of death, plus her last address if that might help 'whoever'.

But you don't need to waste any energy by searching for it. It is an available document for anyone who wants to get hold of a copy.

Put your most important energies where they need to be put!

 

[Saffie]

I have actually found my copy of my Aunt's Will, plus the Bank statement of 2001 when we paid the money for the chalet out, plus the item of 'sundry credit' when we paid it in to the bank. I just can't find the evidence where that came from. Probably my Building society current account but I don't seem to have kept the statements from that time back (unlike our joint account one, though I have to confess, I was surprised I did have them that old.)

I've needed to find an old building society payment before, pre 2000, so I am a bit surprised I haven't kept those since. I can't find the cheque stub either, which is very unusual as I don't use that book very often.

I will ask the BS if they can trace a record back 10 years though. It can't do any harm. I'm not sure if any of this will help prove anything but I guess it's worth a try.

Definitely going to sort the Tenants in common thing out this week though - or is this on the other thread (Peeps) - I'm getting confused!

Thanks for your input JPG - very welcome as usuual.

 

[Saffie]

The building society only have records going back 6 years. How ridiculous in this age when you can keep so many zillions of records on a computer disk and now, how inconvenient!
I even have the cheque number of the money paid into the bank - just need actual proof of where that cheque came from.
Oh well, it wss all worth a try.

 

[EllieS]

Any advice?

Mum, who was diagnosed with AD, was given notice by residential home that the LA had recently been contributing toward costs for.
LA advised locked residential environment necessary to prevent her from absconding.
Took opportunity to move her nearer to my home. Could only find one placement that was locked and that was a dementia unit with qualified nursing and trained dementia careers - it was expensive! Paid top-ups initially.
Had been fighting for chc funding. A few months after the move,chc was approved for period up until move. Carried on the battle. Money ran out I advised LA of this and asked them about deferred payments to no avail. Was badly advised to withhold care costs, which I did. Care home threatened to remove mum but did 'nt. I tried to find a cheaper home but none available. LA advised of one but It Was on top floor with enormous open staircase just outside of bedroom door . Mum would have fallen down these stairs as sure as eggs are eggs, so no good.
Chc not approved for following period, nor thereafter for next period - how I do not know. She did not become miraculously better. She just couldn't get out so was no longer at such a great risk. The trained staff managed her needs, but her needs were no less! She eventually qualify for chc for last couple of months of her life. The battle had been ongoing for 5/6 years!
LA brought court action for unpaid fees . Their legal costs far exceeded the worth of the estate.
In the midst of all of this, mum's capital went below threshold and also, due to timing of successful chc and advice that following periods were likely to be upheld, I surrender an insurance bond to avoid her being moved. So pretty much lost everything that she'd worked for.
Is there anything I can do to in anyway change this do you think. Feel pretty stupid really but it is easy to forget what we do when our loved ones are so vulnerable - at the time, the only thing that mattered was Mum.
Your thoughts would be appreciated
Re don't sha review has upheld the pct decision not to approve chc funding. Is currently with ombudsman re well managed needs still being needs!!!!

Thanks

 

[Nasus]

Oh Chris - not Deputyship again. indeed.

“If you want your child to take you seriously, say your words once. Only once. If you say it more than once, you’re implying, “I think you’re so stupid that you’re not going to get it the first time, so let me tell you again.”
Dr. Kevin Leman, “Have a New Kid by Friday.”
This also applies to adults - I hate the title of the Leman book, but we do not need to have the same quote repeated to us (carers) ad infinitum?