• All threads and posts regarding Coronavirus COVID-19 can now be found in our new area specifically for Coronavirus COVID-19 discussion.

    You can directly access this area >here<.

CRAG is no longer applicable!!!!

Pete R

Registered User
Jul 26, 2014
2,038
Staffs
I haven't seen it mentioned before so :eek: if it has been.

The new Care Act has superseded CRAG and it is now no longer applicable.

This is now the new guidance........
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/366104/43380_23902777_Care_Act_Book.pdf

The Age UK facts sheets have been updated however I am unsure if those of other groups have been.

There are differences, some very subtle that I have seen so far. The examples for a discretionary disregard seem to have a more favourable tone and a complaint I have against the LA to do with allowances whilst in Temporary Care seems to now have a better chance of success as the word "should" has been replaced with the word "must".

However some changes may be more troublesome in that the explanation of how jointly owned property should be regarded in the financial assessment may have changed. The "willing buyer" part is still there but the part about the value being "nil" has gone.

I have no idea if CRAG still applies to cases before April this year but as one of my complaints relates to that time I will hopefully find out.



:) I would like to thank a very helpful employee of an LA that pointed this out to me :)

Bit of a shame really as I had just about got my head around CRAG.:(
 

tre

Registered User
Sep 23, 2008
1,353
Herts
I feel I want to look at a printed copy of this , rather than on screen, so I can make notes and highlight relevant sections. I nearly printed it out and then realised it is 156 pages.
Does anyone know where I can get a copy. I expect I will have to pay.
Tre
 

jaymor

Volunteer Moderator
Jul 14, 2006
13,014
England
i have a copy my son gave me. He is a tax partner in an accountant practice and it was given to him when he attended a seminar re the new care act.
 

Lindy50

Registered User
Dec 11, 2013
5,239
Cotswolds
Wow, this is amazing! I had read that the Care Act superseded previous social care legislation, but I hadn't quite realised the extent of it!

Thanks Pete, nitram and other posters for the info :)
 

CLAIREDAY

Account on hold
Apr 22, 2015
48
I haven't seen it mentioned before so :eek: if it has been.

The new Care Act has superseded CRAG and it is now no longer applicable.

This is now the new guidance........
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa.../file/366104/43380_23902777_Care_Act_Book.pdf

The Age UK facts sheets have been updated however I am unsure if those of other groups have been.

There are differences, some very subtle that I have seen so far. The examples for a discretionary disregard seem to have a more favourable tone and a complaint I have against the LA to do with allowances whilst in Temporary Care seems to now have a better chance of success as the word "should" has been replaced with the word "must".

However some changes may be more troublesome in that the explanation of how jointly owned property should be regarded in the financial assessment may have changed. The "willing buyer" part is still there but the part about the value being "nil" has gone.

I have no idea if CRAG still applies to cases before April this year but as one of my complaints relates to that time I will hopefully find out.



:) I would like to thank a very helpful employee of an LA that pointed this out to me :)

Bit of a shame really as I had just about got my head around CRAG.:(
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/E...rmanent_care_home_provision_fcs.pdf?dtrk=true

Looking at Age Concern Factsheet 38 it does mention nil value in paragraph 5.
Taking my joint ownership with my father as an example I think the value of his share would be nil if I was unwilling to sell because potentially I could be living in the property for another 45 years and who would want to buy a property with me in it?.
If a joint owner is 95 a buyer may be willing to give a low amount because it is likely the joint owner will not live very long.

Claire
 
Last edited:

nitram

Registered User
Apr 6, 2011
20,336
North Manchester
"If a joint owner is 95 a buyer may be willing to give a low amount because it is likely the joint owner will not live very long."

And if the 95 year old dies and bequeaths their half to a 25 year old, what then?
 

Pete R

Registered User
Jul 26, 2014
2,038
Staffs
Looking at Age Concern Factsheet 38 it does mention nil value in paragraph 5.
Taking my joint ownership with my father as an example I think the value of his share would be nil if I was unwilling to sell because potentially I could be living in the property for another 45 years and who would want to buy a property with me in it?.
If a joint owner is 95 a buyer may be willing to give a low amount because it is likely the joint owner will not live very long.

Claire
This is the very last paragraph of Sec 5 of FS38….............

"Note: With regard to the valuation of jointly owned property in the local authority means test, the Government has removed the wording that was in the previous statutory guidance referring to a possible ‘nil’ valuation. However, see section 5.1 above regarding the required procedures for disputed valuations. "
 

Kevinl

Registered User
Aug 24, 2013
4,771
Salford
who would want to buy a property with me in it?.
Claire
If you post a picture Claire I'm willing to have a think about it. You did leave yourself wide open there:D:D:D

Seriously I think the bit on page 18:
"For the resident’s beneficial interest in jointly owned property to have a value to a willing buyer on the open market they must be able to realise its value. This may relate to their potential ability to apply to a Court to enforce sale of the whole property."
Is this a subtle hint that councils should consider getting a court orders more often to make you sell? It seems to hint at it to me. I said a few days back on another thread that it might be on the cards that this happened.
K
 

garnuft

Registered User
Sep 7, 2012
6,585

Kevinl

Registered User
Aug 24, 2013
4,771
Salford
I think the guarantee that all councils will allow deferred payments is an effort to skip past the 'half a house with a sitting-owner is valueless' argument.
But Claire's planning to be there until 2060, are councils really supposed to wait that long? Once the deferred payment (and any interest) exceed the value of the half share in the house then the council are getting nothing more than that. I'm guessing this little "loophole" may be closing in the future.
K
 

CLAIREDAY

Account on hold
Apr 22, 2015
48
But Claire's planning to be there until 2060, are councils really supposed to wait that long? Once the deferred payment (and any interest) exceed the value of the half share in the house then the council are getting nothing more than that. I'm guessing this little "loophole" may be closing in the future.
K
Looking at paragraph 5.1 it would appear that as the purpose of my father and myself being joint owners was to accommodate us the value of my father's share would only be nominal.
The house was purchased to be a home and that is the purpose of the house now as I am living in it.
If I died there would be nobody in the property and for that reason Dad's half would only have a nominal value.

Claire
 

garnuft

Registered User
Sep 7, 2012
6,585
It begs the question, erm, Claire...Where do Welfare benefits begin and end?

Is the State to provide for adults for the whole of their lives, whilst they accumulate wealth leaving property and provision for every generation that follows?

Can one generation enjoy excessive provision while the next takes a step back?

Benefit scroungers?

Who are they?
 
Last edited:

Kevinl

Registered User
Aug 24, 2013
4,771
Salford
It begs the question, erm, Claire...Where do Welfare benefits begin and end?

The new rules are 506 pages long including the annexes the AgeUK digest is exactly that a digest. I can't see where the "valueless share" bit is mentioned it is on the AgeUK but that seems to be from the old CRAC regulations, I'll have to learn to read quicker.
It must drive the council mad that they're paying for Mrs/Mr X's care even though they own a half share in a £2 million house and the other stakeholder doesn't want to sell.
After a certain amount of time they can't collect the debt anyway (this is referred to in the annex in the new regs.
It'll be interesting to see if anything will change, in this day and age I can only see councils getting more "diligent" about getting in any possible income (and rightly so), if they have to go to court and force a sale! I can see this becoming a real possibility it would seem like their only option.
Since the valueless home has been discussed on here so widely you have to wonder what will happen next.
K
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jenniferpa

Registered User
Jun 27, 2006
39,448
It must drive the council mad that they're paying for Mrs/Mr X's care even though they own a half share in a £2 million house and the other stakeholder doesn't want to sell.
The people who should really be cross are the council tax payers.
 

Pete R

Registered User
Jul 26, 2014
2,038
Staffs
Looking at paragraph 5.1 it would appear that as the purpose of my father and myself being joint owners was to accommodate us the value of my father's share would only be nominal.
The house was purchased to be a home and that is the purpose of the house now as I am living in it.
If I died there would be nobody in the property and for that reason Dad's half would only have a nominal value.

Claire
That is the way I have read it too. I do hope it is the case.:) Although it still leaves LA's to test the waters and see if they can at least get a deferred payment on at least some of it. :(

If no owner was living in the property then I would imagine the LA would be after a share. I cannot see anything wrong with that.
 
Last edited:

CLAIREDAY

Account on hold
Apr 22, 2015
48
That is the way I have read it too. I do hope it is the case.:) Although it still leaves LA's to test the waters and see if they can at least get a deferred payment on at least some of it. :(

If no owner was living in the property then I would imagine the LA would be after a share. I cannot see anything wrong with that.
Hi Pete R

I have heard of a case where a man's father is in a nursing home on LA funding and the house is jointly owned by him and his father.
He now has a lady living at the house and he has willed his share to her in case he passes away while his father is in care.
If this happens the lady will immediately become a joint owner occupier. I think that the LA would not recover the care fees in this situation. This may be regarded as unfair by some.
I agree that a LA may bring a test case to see if it can force a sale.


Claire
 
Last edited:

Pete R

Registered User
Jul 26, 2014
2,038
Staffs
I can't see where the "valueless share" bit is mentioned it is on the AgeUK but that seems to be from the old CRAC regulations,
As I said in the OP it is not in the new guidance and that is the point the FS is trying to make.
 

CLAIREDAY

Account on hold
Apr 22, 2015
48
The people who should really be cross are the council tax payers.
Hi Jenniferpa

The difficulty here is that £2,000,000 house may be the other person's home and they will need it to live in after the person goes in to care.
I could see an argument that a single person does not need a house of that sort of value but it is where the line is drawn.
The house my parents left me is around £350,000 and it has 3 double bedrooms and another one which will take a single bed and I am living in it now.
There is a lot of difference between me and somebody with a £2,000,000 property so are you saying I should have sold up if my father needed care?.
Sadly care was being arranged in my father's case but he never made it to the care home.

Claire
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
115,053
Messages
1,682,846
Members
66,045
Latest member
Clands