Hi, It's been a while since I posted here regarding social services strongly pushing for my mum to be admitted into a care home (Paranoia or do LAs really try to push people into full time care to save costs?). Well, my mum has now been admitted into full-time care, the means test has been completed and she has been assessed as being a self-funder (what a surprise). This was the meaning of my previous thread, since my mum was only paying a fraction of her care costs when she was living at home. She will now need to pay the full cost of her care, now that she is living in a care home. Over five years ago, my parents severed the joint tenancy of their house to that of tenants in common, with me named as the beneficiary. My dad died in 2012 and his half share was then held in trust for me according to his Will. My mum continued to live in the house until the middle of last year whereby she was admitted into full-time care, after the matter being pushed through by one particularly enthusiastic social worker. The house has now been valued and the LA now considers that my mum has 50% of this valuation at her disposal for use as care fees, even though the house is not for sale as I would like to move back there at some stage, after it has been renovated. Under the Charging for Residential Accomodation Guide (CRAG), clauses 7.017 - 7.019 indicate that the value of a half share of a house could be nil, since it would be unlikely that any outsider would be willing to buy into the property. However, since April 2015, the new statutory guidance under the Care Act 2014 (CA2014) replaced CRAG. The questions are: - is it really true that under CA2014, the LA has the right to assume that a straight 50% of this valuation is possible to use, even though the house is not for sale therefore this value will not be realised? Is it nowadays possible to agree a much lower percentage with the LA, to limit the care costs, even if it can't generally be argued nowadays that my mum's half share value is nil as under CRAG? - the LA are now pressuring me to make a deferred payment agreement, whereby they can make a charge on the property, subject to it being sold, to recoup their costs on my mum's death. In the previous email exchange with them, I was given 14 days to arrange this with them, or they will give 4 weeks notice to the care home, from which time we will have to contract directly with the care home (What would happen then, would the care home throw my mum on the streets if we don't make a contract with them directly?) If we do make a contract with them, this will effectively almost double the costs of my mum's care, since the LA pays far less for care than a private individual would, who liases directly with the home. The question is, is this even legal to effectively wash their hands of my mum's case or are these just scare tactics designed to make us agree to the deferred payment scheme? It was after all, their social worker who effectively forced my mum to go into full-time care in the first place. - is it true that the LA can force the sale of the property after a deferred agreement has been set up, to recoup their costs after my mum's death, even though I have no plans to sell it? Any advice, views and opinions would be most welcome.