Financial Issues

[Kevinl]

Brother and Sister in law pay market rent

So they pay the fair market rent so why (from your original post) do "They say that my brother in law and sister in law should move out and we rent it to someone else "
If they're good tenants and paying a fair rent what's the councils problem with them being there. I don't know any way they could be a special problem.
The disregard has been refused as they moved in after your mum went into care and I can't think of any way even thought it's her son living in the house he would have anymore rights than any other tenant.
Still if the council make him involuntarily homeless then it's for them find him a new home as they do for anybody homeless.
K

 

[Saffie]

That's fine Chemmy and apologies for being a bit defensive. I am usually very much of the same opinion as you where personal responsibilty versus public dependency is concerned so was just a bit surprised!
I have to say that I'm also confusing this thread with the other one re tenants-in-common, hence my reference to Pete R's posts!

I know that the fact that this was, for all three of us, our family home and it needs to be maintained as such until the time comes that it has to be sold is absolutely irrelevant to LA or those managing the process but it just makes it all more upsetting.

So, in this case, is the house not owned by your mother as a tentant-in -common but outright? If so, and if the rent is no longer covering the fees and the aim of your brother and his wife moving in was to protect the house for the family, then I'm really surprised that the LA disregarded it in the first place. Surely everyone could do that - i.e. sell their own home and move into a home of a parent who is in a home and the fact that your brother was 60 when this happened, doesn't make any difference - does it?
You say that the house needs to be maintained until the time comes that it has to be sold but when should that be? Surely it is now - or if you wish to retain it for the future then it is right that a deferred payment should be placed upon it.
It just doesn't add up somehow - or am I missing something vital.
Apologies if I am but I'm rather confused! So perhaps I should keep quiet now and let others who can see things more clearly advise! :

 

[Witzend]

So they pay the fair market rent so why (from your original post)
Still if the council make him involuntarily homeless then it's for them find him a new home as they do for anybody homeless.
K

The people in question had a home which they sold in order to move into an empty parental home. In such circs I wouldn't think the council would be obliged to house them. They would presumably have to look to buy again or rent privately, as countless thousands of other people have to.

 

[Kevinl]

The people in question had a home which they sold in order to move into an empty parental home. In such circs I wouldn't think the council would be obliged to house them. They would presumably have to look to buy again or rent privately, as countless thousands of other people have to.

I they're living there and as we've been told paying a fair market rent and the council wants them (for some unknown reason) out then it's the council making them homeless. The question is why does the council want them out and new tenants in, what's the logic in that, kicking a son out of his mother's home when he's paying the going rate to rent it? I don't see the logic.
Saying they sold a house is fine but they may have had a large mortgage, debts, credit cards, used the money to get their kids on the housing ladder or whatever it doesn't follow that they are rich.
K

 

[nitram]

Readng >>>POST 1<< again, and probably making 2+2=5, perhaps the OP's mum was self funding for some time and the house only entered into the equation when she reached the upper limit. It was never formally disregarded.

I've been lurking and not really understanding the situation but came up with the above as an explanation.

 

[Saffie]

I think the OP has said that her mother has paid around £100k in fees nitram, with about £20k remaining. So from that I deduce that, yes, self-funding until presumably June 2014 when the LA assessed and placed the disregard according to the OP.

Kevin, the fact is that a house is sitting there, apparantly, until we hear differently, owned outright by the person whose fees are being part-paid to by the LA .
The people living there may be paying a rent etc. but they don't really satisfy the criteria for disregard as they moved into the house after their mother went into a home and have sold a larger house to move in there.
The LA making them homeless doesn't really come into it as they obviously have the capital to rent or buy another house.
As I said before, I'm amazed it was disregarded the first time.

 

[nitram]

"I'm amazed it was disregarded the first time."

I don't think it was actually disregarded, the LA were not interested until the capital reduced to ( near) the upper limit.

 

[Pete R]

.................or am I missing something vital.
Apologies if I am but I'm rather confused!

If you read the link in Post#8 it may all become clear.

Due to a previous decision in a court case, up until Jan this year the rules allowed what has happened in the OP. There was nothing wrong with them moving in at all. It had nothing to do with the rent, whether they had money to buy a house elsewhere or any other associated circumstance. It was the way the rules were.

Obviously the LA involved did not agree and appealed. They won that appeal and as of Jan 2015 the rules changed and are reflected in The New Care Act.

The LA have the right to revisit property disregards at any time and have done so in the case of the OP.

Whatever anyone's thoughts are on the rights and wrongs of what happened originally, if the couple move out and the house is sold to pay for care what happens if/when the appeal takes place and the decision is yet again overturned (the last decision was only 2:1)?

Yes the LA will be forced to step in and pay for the care again but by then the house has been sold and from that there is no going back.

 

[Saffie]

I don't think it was actually disregarded, the LA were not interested until the capital reduced to ( near) the upper limit.

Mum's money has shrunk to around £20k now, the council assessed her and as my brother and his wife (aged 60) live in Mum and Dad's house (dad died in 2010) the council disregarded the property in June 2014,

Well, it's what the OP has said. Do you not think it was because the capital was approaching the upper limit that an assessment was carried out in June? If the lady has been in a home for 4 years, I cannot think why else such an assessment would be carried out at that time.

 

[Saffie]

He held that the true construction of Schedule 4 paragraph 2 (1) (b) of the Regulations is that a property will be disregarded where it was occupied in whole or in part as their home by a relative of the resident who was aged 60 or over at the time the resident first goes into care (emphasis added) and this element does not need to be reviewed on an ongoing basis.

From this reference on Pete R's link, it looks like the house should not be disregarded. The occupant is 60 now but his mother has been in a home for 4 years and only moved in after she went into the home.
also

The High Court have taken a new approach to looking at the definition of a ‘home’ within the Regulations, but the Court of Appeal have confirmed that for a property to be disregarded it must be occupied by a qualifying relative as their home at the date the resident went into care. Any occupation subsequent to the resident going into care is immaterial and cannot bring the property into being disregarded.

 

[Chemmy]

I can't see any valid reason for it being disregarded.

The mother needs her funds released by selling the house. Note 'her' funds. It does not belong to the rest of the family until she passes away, assuming it is left to them in her will.

I had to sell my family home, self-built by my father when I was 11, when my mother needed the money for her care and my OH has had to sell his mother's home for the same reason. I don't see why this case is any different. If the couple are paying a market rent, surely they can pay it for another rental property.

 

[nitram]

Thinking about it again, when the lady's liquid funds reached the upper limit an assessment was made and a disregard was allowed . At that time (June 2014) the LA were informed that a near relative aged over 60 was living in the house. The LA have now found out that the relative did not live in the house until after the lady went into residential care and have withdrawn the disregard. Nothing to do with the implications of the Care Act.

 

[Chemmy]

Thinking about it again, when the lady's liquid funds reached the upper limit an assessment was made and a disregard was allowed . At that time (June 2014) the LA were informed that a near relative aged over 60 was living in the house. The LA have now found out that the relative did not live in the house until after the lady went into residential care and have withdrawn the disregard. Nothing to do with the implications of the Care Act.

That makes sense, Nitram.

 

[Saffie]

That's what I think too.

 

[Pete R]

The LA have now found out that the relative did not live in the house until after the lady went into residential care and have withdrawn the disregard.

Do you somehow know more than we are being told by the poster???

This is from Post #5

The council knew the whole situation and disregarded the property.

 

[Chemmy]

Do you somehow know more than we are being told by the poster???

This is also from post#5

My brother and his wife did sell their property after mum had gone into the care home. We had been renting her house out but people don't seem care about property when they rent it so as brother and sister in law were looking to downsize, it seemed the perfect opportunity to have them in the house and looking after it as they would their own home.

The mother moved into care, subsequently there were problems with the tenants and the relatives moved in. The time line seems pretty clear.

 

[Kevinl]

Kevin, the fact is that a house is sitting there, apparantly, until we hear differently, owned outright by the person whose fees are being part-paid to by the LA .
The people living there may be paying a rent etc. but they don't really satisfy the criteria for disregard as they moved into the house after their mother went into a home and have sold a larger house to move in there.
The LA making them homeless doesn't really come into it as they obviously have the capital to rent or buy another house.
As I said before, I'm amazed it was disregarded the first time.

I agree if the council knew the facts there should never have been a disregard in the first place, they moved in too late to claim that.
But why do the council want them out and replaced with other tenants? If they are legitimately paying a fair rent then on what grounds are they being kicked out?
"and have sold a larger house" nowhere I've seen they sold a larger house.
"they obviously have the capital" again an assumption, they may have bought an annuity, they may have had a large mortgage, they may have given it away to the kids all of these are possible.
My question still is on what grounds in post 5 can the council ask for "They (the council) say that my brother in law and sister in law should move out and we rent it to someone else" why do they want the brother kicked out and replaced with a different tenant, they're not asking for the house to be sold but they don't want him as a tenant, why if he's paying a fair rent.
K

 

[Saffie]

"and have sold a larger house" nowhere I've seen they sold a larger house.

Post 5:-

My brother and his wife did sell their property after mum had gone into the care home.

so as brother and sister in law were looking to downsize, it seemed the perfect opportunity to have them in the house

Downsizing usually means moving into a smaller house!

They say that my brother in law and sister in law should move out and we rent it to someone else so that the house is now back in mums financial affairs.

I'm not sure what this means as surely the rent is part of the mother's financial affairs now - but maybe not as we don't know to whom the rent is being paid.
In fact, as I said earlier, the whole thing doesn't seem to add up!

 

[Pickles53]

I agree if the council knew the facts there should never have been a disregard in the first place, they moved in too late to claim that.
But why do the council want them out and replaced with other tenants? If they are legitimately paying a fair rent then on what grounds are they being kicked out?
"and have sold a larger house" nowhere I've seen they sold a larger house.
"they obviously have the capital" again an assumption, they may have bought an annuity, they may have had a large mortgage, they may have given it away to the kids all of these are possible.
My question still is on what grounds in post 5 can the council ask for "They (the council) say that my brother in law and sister in law should move out and we rent it to someone else" why do they want the brother kicked out and replaced with a different tenant, they're not asking for the house to be sold but they don't want him as a tenant, why if he's paying a fair rent.
K

I don't know why the council would want different tenants in the house if the rental income would be the same. You're right that it's easy to make assumptions though and there may well be something specific which would explain it. I think the couple need to start making other plans if there are no grounds to appeal the council's decision.

If the couple owned a house there must have been some combination of equity and mortgage loan. If there was capital following the sale and they have chosen to spend it on something else, that's their decision but it may mean they now have to find a new home without the benefit of that capital. If they were eligible for a mortgage before, they could apply for a new one. If they can't afford to buy, like everyone else they will need to rent privately.