Deprivation of assets

[Chris-G]

Nope. IN simple terms AIUI the issue here is that where the transfer is within 6 months (e.g. giving away a car or selling it at below trade price) the LA can automatically start to recover the money from the Third Party. Transferring an asset before the 6 months may still cause a problem but it's harder for the LA to do so.

W

Hi Wirralson, once again we meet.

Could it be a strategy do you think, if the LA can state the assets' value regardless of it's true value that they could be forced to a court to prove it?

I prefer the idea that if it is unjust, then the LA should be delayed until they go to an expensive court to get the cash. Solicitors have told me that using the assets to pay lawyers to defend them might well be preferable to just giving them up. Either way the money will go but there is always the chance of winning and retaining some if not all of it. Nor in regard to money, am I silly enough to just believe a Lawyer but it does seem plausible.

Also, very much like the inland revenue, could a negotiated amount be paid instead of what they calculate assets to be? Or will they spend £100,000 to earn £50,000 do you think?

It might save a lot of money for some people and of course increase the workload on the LA that, at least at the top, does not seem to care one way or another when NHS decisions are poorly made that deny CHC funding.

 

[Chris-G]

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.

Hi Genie,

So if I got my mum's classic and spotless E Type Jag because she had always promised it to me when she stopped driving, then it could not easily be argued that she was doing it to deprive the LA under CRAG.

Likewise if she gave my sister a family heirloom a diamond tiara (Oh! are we rich family: I wish), under the same long standing agreement. Then how could the LA make that case in a court? There was a long pre-existing agreement or intent to do something. The LA cannot easily dispute those kinds of things.

What evidence would they have to present in a court have unless you opened your mouth and told them otherwise?

Also, is NHS CHC funding considered "residential accommodation" under CRAG rules? Why shouldn't someone that is sick and not supported by the LA, spend their money and assets as they or their (under marriage, perhaps) co-owner wish to?

For another example is perhaps paying for a very expensive care home (when others locally might be half the price), capable of being considered as deprivation of assets under CRAG? Would the third party (the home), have to refund some of the money?

Speculation, Speculation. It would be fun if it was not so serious.

 

[garnuft]

A resident paid for his own accommodation for 2 years, then gave £20,000 to his daughter in March, and continued to self-fund until December of that year. The resident then approached the LA for support; therefore, the 6 month rule does not apply. Although section 21 of HASSASSA does not apply, in this case the LA does still have recourse to regulation 25(1) of the National Assistance (Assessment of Resources) Regulations 1992. (see section 6.057)

I think this is the rule that mops up the drops.

 

[WILLIAMR]

A strange thing I did hear was a daughter purchased a new car with her mother to accommodate her mother's wheel chair and other material relating to her disability.
The car cost about £14,000 and the mother had to go in to care nearly 4 years later
I understand the mother contributed £7,000.
The council went through the finances and the council demanded the daughter returned the £7,000 but after 4 years the car was worth about £6,000.
I know the daughter offered to pay £3,000 but the council would not accept it.
I don't know what happened in the end.


William

 

[Wirralson]

Hi Wirralson, once again we meet.

Could it be a strategy do you think, if the LA can state the assets' value regardless of it's true value that they could be forced to a court to prove it?

I prefer the idea that if it is unjust, then the LA should be delayed until they go to an expensive court to get the cash. Solicitors have told me that using the assets to pay lawyers to defend them might well be preferable to just giving them up. Either way the money will go but there is always the chance of winning and retaining some if not all of it. Nor in regard to money, am I silly enough to just believe a Lawyer but it does seem plausible.

Also, very much like the inland revenue, could a negotiated amount be paid instead of what they calculate assets to be? Or will they spend £100,000 to earn £50,000 do you think?

It might save a lot of money for some people and of course increase the workload on the LA that, at least at the top, does not seem to care one way or another when NHS decisions are poorly made that deny CHC funding.

Most of the assets will be capable of being professionally valued (house, car jewellery). The LA seeks to recover the full value. It's pretty simple. Example: A sells B a 7 year old 36k miles Toyota Auris for £1k. At current prices trade value is £3800 private sale £4200. Local authority looks at this 5 months down the line and checks Glasses' Guide. End of case. First 6 months LA recovers easily - after 6 months it is harder for the LA.

W