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.
Luck and love.
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.
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.
Wrong, Saffie, your advice is very welcome. I know you've helped a lot of people, particularly when it comes to your personal experience of Deputyship, and I for one would be quite cross if you decided not to post in this area in the future.
Thank you Jennifer. Your help and advice has always been extremely valuable to me and without it, I doubt I would have coped as well as I did.
Sorry Saffie maybe I wanted to be an ostrich about the future and what dementia will bring
Lyn, I know your situation is a little different with LPA and CHC funding but I do agree with you that certain principles are similar.
In an effort to understand why someone said that she had found my comments negative and causing her unnecessary worry, I have looked at the few posts the poster has made. I think I am right in assuming that her husband is still at home and, until you have found yourself in a situation, it is difficult to realise the difficulties that can arise.
I sincerely hope that the lady never finds herself in the situation that involves the LA, then those worries will remain forever unneccessary.
I shall from now on hesitate to post any advice where financial or legal matters are concerned. I have managed to acomplish so much with legal and financial matters since joining TP and gaining so much advice and encouragement from members, that I thought I might be able to remain here and pass on relevant information when it was asked for. It is obviously not welcome so I will refrain in future.
Let's face it, it will make my life a lot less stressful!
Thank you Jennifer. Your help and advice has always been extremely valuable to me and without it, I doubt I would have coped as well as I did.
I suspect it's the welfare part that is slowing it down.
I can understand how you feel Saffie - after the loss of my mum (quite suddenly) recently I'm finding it difficult to deal with her affairs, keep an eye on dad & still sort out MIL's care bills etc (hubby & I have EPA). She recently had another assessment for CHC &, unsurprisingly, failed eligibility. I know I could probably fight it however I just don't have the energy left anymore.
Please keep coming onto this forum & helping others with advice, it would be such a loss to us all if you didn't.
Just one point that this thread has made me ponder - Lyn's having to replace the car that she uses but is in her hubby's name so therefore the LA treat it as his possession. Many couples, us included, own a vehicle that is used by both & is funded by joint finances but you can only register it under one name. That's obviously how the LA are getting away with treating it as Lyn's husband's property. How many of us will fall foul of that? The only way we could get around it is, once a partner appears to be in need of future care, the carer will have to register the car in their own name. If I was ever in that position I would love for the LA to try & accuse me of deprivation of assets - although we paid for our car from our joint account it was MY pension lump sum that paid for it! It's amazing that marriage is seen as a partnership in every sense but not when it comes down to the LA!
Keep well Saffie,
Angie
I am a bit confused. the way I read section 21 of CRAG (see below) LA if an asset was transferred more than six months before residential care is required it is disregard? Anyone agree? If so why would LA go back more than 6 months?
From CRAG April 2014
Section 21
2. This Section applies where a resident has transferred an asset to a third party with the intention of reducing his liability for charges. It provides that the third party shall be liable for the difference between the amount assessed as due to be paid by the resident and the amount which the LA receive from him for his accommodation.
Deprivation of assets
2.1 In order for Section 21 to apply, the LA must have decided that the resident has transferred an asset to someone else with the intention of avoiding charges for accommodation. The transfer must have taken place no more than six months before admission to residential accommodation (or six months before resuming occupation in the case of a resident who has been absent from such accommodation). Also, the resident must either have received no consideration for the transfer or any consideration must have been less than the value of the asset.
The six months before residing in Part 3 accommodation rule for disposing of assets can only be applied from the date a local authority has assessed a person as needing residential care under the Part 3 of the National Assistance Act, and has arranged a placement in a local authority home or independent sector home. The six month rule does not apply where a resident is self-funding in an independent sector home, has not been assessed, nor had their placement arranged by a local authority.