Hi there - I wonder if anyone out there can answer my query. My father in law is cared for in a residential home specialising in dementia care under section 117 (state funded) but a long way from my mother in law and no public transport for her to visit him (she doesn't drive). She lives a considerable distance away but we were unable to find a home to take him nearer to her. We are wondering if it is possible for her to sell her house and buy another nearer to him without social services claiming any of the money? The house is in both names. We understand social services cannot make her homeless but were also told that if she tried to sell her house, social services would take half the proceeds to fund her husband's care. Is this true does anyone know? She would need all the funds from the sale of her house to buy another.
can the spouse of a person cared for under section 117 sell the house and move?
- Thread starter bluegp
- Start date
Hi bluegp and welcome to TP,
Sec 117 funding is not means tested so no one can claim any money or take half of anything.
The rules are slightly more complicated for those that are not sec 117 funded but do get help from the Local Authority so maybe that is where you have heard about funds being taken away.
As long as someone has Power of Attorney for your Father I can see no problem with what your MiL wants to do.
I wish you all well.
Hi Blue. welcome to TP
It's a Pete says she's OK to move and the LA can't touch the money. She will have to have a lasting power of attorney for finance or be a appointed Deputy with the Court of Protection to give her the legal right to act on his behalf in the sale.
If she has an LPA or deputyship then she is not legally allowed to profit form her position, so I would suggest that if there is money left over after the sale and purchase (i.e. if she downsizes or moves to a cheaper part of the country) that halve of the profit belongs to him and cannot go into an account in her name and that his name has to go on the deeds for the new house on the same basis as the current house.
K
It's a Pete says she's OK to move and the LA can't touch the money. She will have to have a lasting power of attorney for finance or be a appointed Deputy with the Court of Protection to give her the legal right to act on his behalf in the sale.
If she has an LPA or deputyship then she is not legally allowed to profit form her position, so I would suggest that if there is money left over after the sale and purchase (i.e. if she downsizes or moves to a cheaper part of the country) that halve of the profit belongs to him and cannot go into an account in her name and that his name has to go on the deeds for the new house on the same basis as the current house.
K
Although I didn't ask the question, thank you for the answer Kevinl. My husband is funded with NHS CHC and I wondered if I would be allowed to downsize, purchasing any new property as tenants in common with my husband , and any money left over to be split equally between us. It seems from your answer that this would be allowed
The original question was regarding s117 funding and Kevin was answering that.
CHC funding is rather more complicated as it can be more readily withdrawn compared to s117.
If you feel that CHC will never be withdrawn or if it is and you have enough funds to never need financial help from the LA then go ahead and do what you like.
However if you do need LA help in the future they may well count half of the proceeds of the sale of your current home as being your husbands. There are provisions within the CA2014 to allow all or part of that half be given to you to buy another property. It is though at the Discretion of the LA. There is no guidance in the CA2014 for whose name/s the new property should be in.
Not wishing to scare you just something you may wish to consider.
Hi Tigerlady
Pete's made an important point, we're talking about section 117 funding which is different to CHC. As Pete says CHC can and often is withdrawn and if that means that the LA become involved they may ask questions about the house sale.
The problem is the new care act (2015 although it came into force April 2015) is a bit vague and as yet untested.
The LA can allow the move and if you downsized and split the profit 50-50 I can't see how they could object as you've not profited in any way, nor have you disadvantaged him either so what could they use as an argument to say it was wrong?
The rules changed with the new act and much of it is open to interpretation and is untested so far.
K
Pete's made an important point, we're talking about section 117 funding which is different to CHC. As Pete says CHC can and often is withdrawn and if that means that the LA become involved they may ask questions about the house sale.
The problem is the new care act (2015 although it came into force April 2015) is a bit vague and as yet untested.
The LA can allow the move and if you downsized and split the profit 50-50 I can't see how they could object as you've not profited in any way, nor have you disadvantaged him either so what could they use as an argument to say it was wrong?
The rules changed with the new act and much of it is open to interpretation and is untested so far.
K
This part of the act is not open to interpretation. It is definitely at the discretion of the LA and also the husband or their PoA as well. I would hope any LA would look at this favourably but as we all know LA's can be a funny beast.
The argument they could use is this (I will use H for Husband and W for Wife).......H is in care so the original house, valued at £200,000 is disregarded because W still lives in it. W sells the house. Immediately £100,00 becomes an asset of H. Those are the rules.
W buys another property with the approval of the LA for £150,000 and splits the profits equally. So H should have had £100,00 but now has only £25,000. I can see a bean counter pen pusher looking very hard at that.
The profit cannot be split equally as the remaining £50,00 still belongs to H.
I am only speculating here but maybe that is why there is no guidance as to whose name the new property should be in and would think W has every right to put it solely in her name.
If the house goes into the wife's name only how would that work?
She's have deprived him of the asset/value of half the house.
Life these days is complicated, he may have children from a previous relationship who may be disinherited by taking his name off the deeds for example or other "interested parties" who may lose out.
Should the wife (in the case you outline) predecease the husband there could be all kinds of complications from effectively taking his share of the property.
Likewise if there is a POA or CoP deputyship in place then this would be illegal as it would be a benefit to the person holding the LPA/CoP which is not allowed.
K
W has not deprived anyone of anything. H had his half of the sale and the LA authorised some it to go towards W buying somewhere more suitable for herself. W has used all her half of the original house to buy the new whereas H has not.
Even if the LA had not authorised it H would be classed as self funding and hopefully lived long enough till it ran out so unfortunately no inheritance from his share.
Wow - thank you for all your input. I really don't want to move, but the house is big, and I can forsee expensive maintenance bills ahead, and although my husband is funded by CHC and would still score severe on behaviour and cognition, I am well aware that things could change, and funding could be withdrawn. I don't want to suddenly be faced with this and have no money for a top up to keep him where he is because it would be a big top up and the money in his own name is below the threshold, so the LA would then be involved.
I thought that if I could downsize, and make him a tenant in common on any new house, it would be a better investment than anywhere else I could put the money, as interest rates are so low, and half the left over money would be immediately available to him if CHC funding was withdrawn, and when that got below the threshold, I would still (hopefully) have some of my own to make any top-ups. If I should die before him, he would also have half of the new house to his name as well.
By doing this I think we will have enough funds to not get involved with the LA.
I will check all this out with the OPG before I do anything
I thought that if I could downsize, and make him a tenant in common on any new house, it would be a better investment than anywhere else I could put the money, as interest rates are so low, and half the left over money would be immediately available to him if CHC funding was withdrawn, and when that got below the threshold, I would still (hopefully) have some of my own to make any top-ups. If I should die before him, he would also have half of the new house to his name as well.
By doing this I think we will have enough funds to not get involved with the LA.
I will check all this out with the OPG before I do anything
