Help needed re home ownership for unregistered house

[Kevinl]

Am I the only person a bit concerned that no one is representing the mother in all this?

No, not at all, I'm not even saying that it's morally right to take this course of action. But at all times we all have to conduct ourselves within the law, there are punishments if we don't even, if we're not aware what the law actually is. This applies to not just you and me but it applies to the LA too.
I believe there is a case to be made that the LA may well not be acting legally and that can be challenged.
In some ways making a house a joint tenancy could be seen as a way of depriving the surviving spouse of their share of a house, as they then don't get the total ownership.
I understood when we took out a mortgage that if I went first my wife got the house and vice versa, it is our house not an inheritance, but apparently it's OK to give someone with no capacity a letter to change the tenancy so my half never pays for her care, morally I think that stinks, I may be the only one who does. It's taking money that she may need for her care and leaving the taxpayer to pick up the bill.
The mother here has no need of the money and the father is self funding so he does, it's quite likely that the net beneficiaries of both wills will be the same people so the mother's beneficiaries are probably not losing out.
I guess it just boils down to the LA will never give you anything you're not legally entitled to so why shouldn't we not do the same?
K

 

[jenniferpa]

My specific concern is that the LA will apply for deputyship for the mother. If they want to take this further, I think they'll have to honestly. And I'm not sure anyone would be happy with that situation. I'm not talking about morality or even the legal situation here, just the practicalities.

 

[Kevinl]

My specific concern is that the LA will apply for deputyship for the mother. If they want to take this further, I think they'll have to honestly. And I'm not sure anyone would be happy with that situation. I'm not talking about morality or even the legal situation here, just the practicalities.

They almost certainly have the mother under a DoLS order at the moment and her money is under the limit so they can touch that so what difference would a deputyship make in practical terms? Psychologically someone else having deputyship over a parent might bother you, but in real terms having someone under a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguarding order isn't a situation many of us are "happy with" either but that's how it is, we just have to live with it.
They could only ask for a financial deputyship which would be onerous on them to do all the paperwork each year as they would become responsible for her finances, they may have to apply again for the right to go to court on her behalf so it could cost hundreds in CoP fees and they may lose the case if it ever went to court.
They'd have to ask the CoP for permission to go to court to prove that the decision that the CoP made when they said that the father owns the house is wrong and that it's jointly owned or there is a beneficial interest which the CoP have already decided doesn't exist. The Court of Protection is a court just like any other and they've made their decision so good luck with that.
Someone at the LA can't overturn the decision of a court of the land because they don't agree with it, the Court of Protection have made their decision, it's 100% his house, the only way to prove any differently is if a higher court overrules them.
K

 

[jenniferpa]

the Court of Protection have made their decision, it's 100% his house, the only way to prove any differently is if a higher court overrules them.

You see, and I realise I sound argumentative but I'm really not being (well maybe I am but I'm concerned for the OP) - I'm not sure they have made a decision. They've accepted the facts as were given to them (and the facts as the OP believed them to be) but I don't think that means they couldn't revisit the issue should they receive another petition related to this. So the COP could change their mind should the need arise. No higher court necessary. The COP for the most part make their decisions based on the information presented to them, and unless an issue is raised they won't go further than the facts presented. Now I have no idea if they would reaffirm their initial decision, but I do think the OP needs to understand that the COP order is not set in stone. And implying it is is doing her a disservice.


I just don't think the OP needs anymore hassle. I'm all for standing up and not being a pushover, but as I mentioned in my previous post, in the final analysis I don't think agreeing with the LA will actually make anyone's financial position worse, while fighting them over it might.

It's obviously up to the OP, but she's said she's at the end of her tether and who can blame her? And I'm not going to type that "you should fight as a matter of principle" when it might well be beyond her both financially and emotionally. And if at the end the money is used for care for her parents rather than lawyers fees, then I think we should support that decision. Or the other one if she chooses to take it. But it's her call.

Something else has occurred to me: I don't think the LA would find it impossible to get a legal charge against the property. I'm not saying that they should be able to, but I think it's possible they could. And that would make the OPs life even more difficult. Do also bear in mind that if the LA was successful in applying to the COP, the funds would be coming from the OPs mother, not them. In fact, if I was the LA that's what I would do to test the waters: apply for a legal charge against the house. If it wasn't successful they would simply be out the filing fees (since they have a legal team on staff) and if it was, that would give them more ammunition. And thinking about it, if I was the OP I think I might wait until they did, TBH. I don't see it would put her in a worse position and if they couldn't get a charge it would definitely put her in a stronger one.

 

[Kevinl]

Something else has occurred to me: I don't think the LA would find it impossible to get a legal charge against the property. I'm not saying that they should be able to, but I think it's possible they could.

To get a charging order requires that the residents/owner agrees to it (hence this car loan document mentioned earlier on), either that or a County Court Judgement which has not been discharged. As neither of these are the case then that closes that door.
The OP said right back at the beginning
"Not to mention there will have to be changes made with Dads COP, because the information I supplied initially will have to be changed, based solely on the LA's solicitors decision"
That's the issue I'm addressing, can an LA solicitor overturn a decision made by the CoP? Well my answer is no, a higher court can but no one else.
If the LA's are allowed to make up their own laws what happens next: you can't have half of your partners private pensions, many more women that men benefit from this, putting your house in a trust or becoming joint tenants is a deprivation of assets?
All of these could be open to a challenge, trying something like the OP's problem is just the thin end of the wedge for stretching the law beyond its limits, we (the LA) don't like it so we'll say anything in the hope that you'll shut up and pay up.
K

 

[jenniferpa]

They haven't got a county court order yet. Yet. The door on that hasn't yet been opened, let alone closed.

Look Kevin: I really do get what you are saying and I broadly agree with you. But I also think it's important to recognise that what you would do, what I would do in this situation is just that: what we would do. It's all very well to say "they can't do this, they can't do that" but I really think you aren't listening to the OP. She's tired. She's been ill. She's entirely fed up.

It really isn't relevant to the OP if this is the thin end of the wedge: she's having to deal with the situation. It might well be, but if she doesn't choose to be the test case then I don't think it's anyone's place to encourage her to be. All we can really do is support her in whatever decision she chooses to make. And to that end, I'm just pointing out the pros and cons. You're all about: this isn't right. Well it might well not be. But that's not the issue. It's about if and why and how she chooses to fight. And I remain convinced that, whichever path she chooses, it won't be a clear victory, financially or otherwise.

But to reemphasise - I wouldn't be the first person taking action. I'd wait to see what the LA did.

 

[cragmaid]

Susan....

....... I think that all of the above simply proves that sadly, we all have opinions, however we are not experts in this field.

I know you would like to feel well and to simply carry on loving Mum and Dad. I'm sure you want to wash your hands of the whole lot, and tell the LA to either stick it or take the lot..... and I don't blame you for that. but sadly this is not going to be easy either way.

Please take your time, see a solicitor, ask the LA for their evidence...... and make no promises yet..... tell them the matter is under consideration and you will respond in due course.

Look after yourself first and foremost. You cannot help anyone if you get ill.x.x.