Deprivation of assets
- Thread starter kingmidas1962
- Start date
That's dreadful Gwen. I hope you dropped a sweet word or two in his ear!
I'd love to have been able to give Only Me's response but I wouldn't have as I can never think of such clever put-downs at the time! Loads later on though!
I'd love to have been able to give Only Me's response but I wouldn't have as I can never think of such clever put-downs at the time! Loads later on though!
As far as I'm aware spending income is not the same as depriving yourself of an income, the latter being caught by CRAG. I'm assuming you would be spending your mum's money under the authority of either a Power of Attorney or a Deputyship order. In either case you can only spend your mum's income for her benefit, subject to the rule about usual and reasonable gifts.
For rules on deprivation of income see CRAG https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...hment_data/file/301250/CRAG_34_April_2014.pdf starting at para 8.074.
At my dad's funeral my uncle by marriage, and old enough to be my father, made a pass at me. I just stood there - as you say, sometimes there are no words.
That's exactly what did happen. And me dear old Mam even had an insurance policy that she'd paid into since before I was born (the insurance man used to come every Friday) that more than paid for her funeral costs.
I'm busy smartening up my kitchen (money from me Mam) and I think of her, she'd be saying 'What ARE you doing wasting money like that? Get yourself out, buy some nice things, get your hair done...spend it on YOU not the house!'
I know that's what she'd think.
Soss Ma, I want new flooring
I too agree - please don't think for one moment that either my husband or I are after her money! We want her to spend HER money on HERSELF and do with it what she wishes - and if that means using the bulk or all of it to pay for a 'bells and whistles' care home when she needs it then that's what she must do.
I keep tying to say to SIL that it ISNT her money. She never paid the mortgage on the property! If MIL was to die tomorrow and hadn't left her a penny then that would be because she didn't want to, and those are her wishes.
Hi Saffie,
I make my comments in the light of the fact that the councils are the only way forward once the NHS finds that a patient has "got better" and no longer needs CHC funding.
Possible if one actually gets well..... Not really possible if dementia has already caused a need for CHC funding.
I did not intend the (Council Spending) statement above to be taken literally. However, the care home does not use CRAG against a resident in a home, it is the council that does that and what with one thing and another it does often seem as if the councils (once they are involved), are attempting to decide how a couple's jointly held money, both capital and income will be spent. "Top up's" spring to mind as one example.
The other point about LPA etc. CHC/CRAG competent Solicitors wrote my father that as long as the income was within a joint account then he had every right to spend all of the money including her income whilst CHC funding was being paid for his wife's care.
She implied that a joint account was a kind of contract between those entitled to withdraw from it. Both parties accept the risk that the other might take all of the cash for example. (Dad, of course, diligently saved it for the day that CHC ended and of course in so doing, increased her capital with obvious results).
If you doubt me, ask your bank what can be done if your other half withdraws all of the cash from your joint account. They will tell you that there is nothing they can do about it.
As for not spending large sums from their capital..... what would be the point of two people contracting a marriage and staying together for 50 or 60 years and saving jointly (for each other's benefit), only to have what becomes a joint asset, (capital because it was not earlier spent), denied to the one that does not need care?
For example: If the couple enacted plans that require both of their incomes and the income does not provide some capital asset or has a diminishing return then how can it be wrong to continue that plan even if it does force the council to pay all of the care costs. ( A time share for example is not as valuable many years on from it's original purchase, with perhaps ongoing payments to make from joint incomes.) The cognizant party would lose the timeshare rights if sold and also lose financially because the joint enterprise was valued only in monetary terms when split. There are plenty of other examples.
Without going back over decades, who externally, could prove who contributed what to joint capital or an enterprise that did not require accounts?
Who could prove which of the couple gave something up on the promise that because the other benefited then they both benefited.
Yet these arguments are perfectly valid in divorce settlements (they are a kind of contract too).
But in nursing home placements that involve the council, there is simply a 50/50 splitting of jointly held assets and (sometimes), income. That does not seem fair particularly because one half of the split has little cognition to argue their corner, compared to someone separating assets during a divorce.
Reference:
http://www.contractsandagreements.co.uk/marriage-contracts.html
"Marriage Contracts
When people are married they will enter into a marriage contract that gives them certain rights. The marriage contract is a legally binding document that give the married couple certain rights that are not extended to people who are simply cohabiting. Married rights can include financially supporting each other and responsibilities regarding child support."
In marriage, one generally agrees to support the other yet the council interferes with that pre-existing contract, by their use of CRAG and the rules that permit the removal of income except for 50% of a private pension.
I know that there are rules and that you are accurately stating many of them. My very long (sorry)
point is that so many of them appear challengeable and for considerably less than £30,000 to £50,000 a year.All the best CG.
Hi CG,
My dad was in receipt of CHC, and his income (state and private pension) was paid into his and my mum's joint account. That was also the case before CHC was awarded and he was self-funding. I must admit it never occurred to me that once CHC was awarded, if my mum had spent more than her own contribution to the account on her own living expenses, she could be accused of depriving him of his income. I see now where you're coming from.
My dad was in receipt of CHC, and his income (state and private pension) was paid into his and my mum's joint account. That was also the case before CHC was awarded and he was self-funding. I must admit it never occurred to me that once CHC was awarded, if my mum had spent more than her own contribution to the account on her own living expenses, she could be accused of depriving him of his income. I see now where you're coming from.
As my husband's Deputy I think the Court would have something to say if I'd spent his income from the joint account. Every penny of income and expenditure had to accounted for via a detailed annual report.
As to your other comments, I'm afraid sleep beckons and I really have no energy for a debate on such matters. I know how I would act but I realise that others may choose otherwise.
As to your other comments, I'm afraid sleep beckons and I really have no energy for a debate on such matters. I know how I would act but I realise that others may choose otherwise.
Hi Saffie, I hope you slept well,
I forgot to mention that no one has a deputyship or EPA/LPA in regard to my mum. As such accounting for income spent is not an issue, apparently. However CRAG rules can look at disposal of assets, savings etc in mum's name only.
We were even told to redact the bank statement entries in the joint account for the very reason that it shows both sets of expenditure and it seems that the council are not entitled to see what my father spends from or puts in the joint account. It would be unnecessary data gathering and if processed it would be a breach of his rights. This is what I meant about there being so many laws that seem to take precedence over what are often only protocols or if actually laws themselves then there is a conflict.
All the best. CG.
Last edited:
I really didn't want to revisit this as I have other more pressing matters on my mind.
However, our situation was a little different as it was mainly my husband's income which was going into the joint account as I had very little and no state pension in my own right. The LA financial advisor took photos of our joint account statements and these were examined and it was deduced that as most of the income going in there was my husband's, I had no right to use it for household bills once he had entered a nursing home, nor for much else.
This was despite the fact that this was merely a continuation of what had happened throughout the 50 + years of our married life and was incidentally, fully approved by the OPG.
This was of course, whilst my husband was self-funding as once the LA came aboard, I could use none on it apart from the half of my husband's teacher's pension - for anything including household bills and repairs.
I don't know whether you have been privvy to what I have previously written where I said that the LA then refused to contribute to my husband's NH fees until the capital had reduced to £18,000 rather than the expected £23,250 even though of course the said utility bills came to nowhere near that amount.
The Financial oficer for the LA said it was in my favour to do this too but I confess failed to see the truth of this. However, with a very ill husband to worry about and other matters pressing, I had no choice but to accept it. It is what it is and now it's done and over with.
Sorry Saffie but all your replies are so negative and caused me some unneccesary worries. I hope the moderators look at your responses.
I read saffies replies as being supportive. I'm sorry to read that you do not.
Sent from my iPhone using Talking Point
Sent from my iPhone using Talking Point
I think it would be mistake to read what I take as "fair warning" as being negative. The truth is, it wouldn't be supportive to say "oh go ahead, do what you want, no problem" because there can be problems. They are posted about here every day.
Once my husband went into a home I transferred all the direct debits for household expenses to a separate account in my name only and transferred half ofmy husbands private pension into that account too.
So the joint account was only then used for fees and personal things for my husband.
Like Saffie I took these matters seriously.
As it turned out my husband only lived 14 weeks in the home so I did not need to show anyone what I had done.
So the joint account was only then used for fees and personal things for my husband.
Like Saffie I took these matters seriously.
As it turned out my husband only lived 14 weeks in the home so I did not need to show anyone what I had done.
I welcome any scrutiny of my posts here by moderators and I'm sorry Stovey if you find my replies negative.
I can only speak from my own experience which I think it is very obvious that I have done. So I don't really see how I could say otherwise as I would be lying.
In fact, contrary to your view, I have taken time to dispel some of the more alarmist comments made by the poster to whose posts I was replying. The LAs are not always as bad as they are asumed to be by some people. They are, after all, spending public money.
I'm also concerned that my comments have caused you worries. Why that would be I have no idea. I was under the impression that I was being supportive of those who have to face these problems by illustrating that there are rules and regulations which just have to be followed, much though some people might resent them.
The reference you have quoted is absolute truth. Perhaps you are not a Deputy so will not be aware of the responsibilty put upon them by the Court of Protection who are the actual holders of the Attourneyship. It is far more onerous that having an LPA. I spent none of my husband's income apart from the half of his occupational pension, allowed me by the LA and this was used for all house and utility expenses once the LA started to contribute towards his NH fees.
Previously, I was able to use some of my husband's income to pay for half the household expenses as this was permitted by the OPG. However, the LA thought otherwise and I had no choice but to agree to their decision.
Regarding the second part of the quote, I really think that at such a time, I am quite entitled to wish to sleep, especially having had a rather bad day with it being the first birthday my husband has missed since he recently died.
I also think that the poster has his own views to which he is entitled to, just as I have mine, which is what I said.
Hi Stovey, I am not worried about Saffie's replies but have some concern that she appears exhausted/burdened and as such I will comply with her implied wish that I leave matters to lie.
All the best. CG
Thank you Chris. I am trying to work on my husband's probate affairs as well as facing an operation next week, on top of other things so do feel pretty shattered.
Last edited:
Similar threads
