I am well aware of that - and, as you can see from your quote, I didn't use the word' council' - but the LA have to balance their books somehow and if they have right on their side, why would they not use it.
I wasn't having a go at you, Saffie, far from it. But there are people who seem to think "the council" (and indeed "the government") should pay for all sort of things, without realising that councils are actually spending hard-pressed taxpayers money.
I do some voluntary work, organising our council's subsided hanging basket sales to local shops and I've had numerous people having a go at me for having the cheek to ask for them to pay extra to have an extra basket hung outside their shop as it "the council's job" to beautify the town. I've had to bite my tongue when politely explaining that as it probably meant a choice between free hanging baskets or day care provision for the elderly, they might like to reconsider their objection. They usually look a bit sheepish then....
Personally I support this new ruling. I am quite happy for a property to be disregarded whilst the spouse or a genuine carer/ relative lives there, but there isn't going to be enough money in the system to protect inheritances in the future. I have no issue with the proposal of a forced sale or a deferred payment arrangement to free up half the value of the house.
Look at this another way. I have a nephew who has never moved out of his family home. When his parents both die, I suspect the house will be willed to him and his sister. What happens then? Is my nephew going to expect to keep the whole house to himself as it's 'always been his family home' or is his sister going to expect him to buy her half share or move out and split the proceeds? The answer is clear cut to me. His sister is due her 50%.
I don't see the difference in this example to offspring who have inherited half a home from one parent being obliged to either buy the other half share or sell up and divide the proceeds.