Help please - Tenants in Common

annawolowiec

New member
Oct 23, 2017
8
0
Hi, I need some advice, my husband and our 2 children age 6 and 8 have moved in to a new property with my in-laws 4.5 years ago to ensure they can be looked after and be closer to us. When purchasing the property we have set it up as tenants in common. In March they went into a care home and there was a best interest meeting which resulted in them staying there permanently. I have received a letter on 20th October saying we now have to pay full fee backdated to 17th August. The LA are now saying they will take into consideration the value of the property. I was under the impression that in case there are any children under the age of 16 living in the property and also in case the property has been purchased as tenants in common this should be disregarded. I need some advice please
 

Kevinl

Registered User
Aug 24, 2013
6,050
0
Salford
Hi Anna, welcome to TP
You may not have noticed but this thread is 8 years old so it may be better to start a new thread of your own in legal and financial.
Much of the information on this thread refers to the CRAC regulations is now out of date having been replaced by the 2014 Care Act.
K
 

annawolowiec

New member
Oct 23, 2017
8
0
Hi Anna, welcome to TP
You may not have noticed but this thread is 8 years old so it may be better to start a new thread of your own in legal and financial.
Much of the information on this thread refers to the CRAC regulations is now out of date having been replaced by the 2014 Care Act.
K
HI Kevin, I have tried creating a new thread but it is not allowing me saying error
 

Mark_W

Registered User
Sep 28, 2015
4,036
0
London
Hi Anna I've moved this into a new thread for you and I'll be in touch by private message about starting new threads.
 

Kevinl

Registered User
Aug 24, 2013
6,050
0
Salford
The guidance notes to the 2014 care act say that the house is a "mandatory disregard" in the financial assessment if:
  1. (c) where the person no longer occupies the property but it is occupied in part or whole as their main or only home by any of the people listed below, the mandatory disregard only applies where the property has been continuously occupied since before the person went into a care home (for discretionary disregards see below):
  2. (i) the persons partner, former partner or civil partner, except where they are estranged
  3. (ii) a lone parent who is the person’s estranged or divorced partner;
  4. (iii) a relative as defined in paragraph 35 of the person or member of the person’s family who is either:
    1. 1) aged 60 or over
    2. 2) is a child of the resident aged under 18
    3. 3) is incapacitated
35) For the purposes of the disregard a relative is defined as including any of the following:
  1. (a) parent (including an adoptive parent)
  2. (b) parent-in-law
  3. (c) son (including an adoptive son)
  4. (d) son-in-law
  5. (e) daughter (including an adoptive daughter)
  6. (f) daughter-in-law
  7. (g) step-parent
  8. (h) step-son
  9. (i) step-daughter
  10. (j) brother
  11. (k) sister
  12. (l) grandparent
  13. (m) grandchild
  14. (n) uncle
  15. (o) aunt
  16. (p) nephew
  17. (q) niece
  18. (r) the spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner of (a) to (k) inclusive
So as long as a grandchild, under 18 lives there then I can't see why the house is anything other than a mandatory disregard as long as an under 18 grandchild lives there.
There's a link below to the Care Act Guidelines, it's in Annex B, paragraphs 34 & 35.
As always never deal with the LA by phone if possible.
K

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-guidance/care-and-support-statutory-guidance
 

Shedrech

Registered User
Dec 15, 2012
12,649
0
UK
I'm not so sure
4) iii certainly starts with 'relative', so that applies to 1. and 3.
but the wording of 2. is not 'relative' it is 'child of the resident' - if 'the resident' is to be taken as the person moving into a care home, this precludes a grandchild
 

jenniferpa

Registered User
Jun 27, 2006
39,442
0
I agree with @Shedrech . 35 is simply defining who might be a relative. Only if the home is lived in by a relative (one those listed in 35) who is older than 60, or is disabled or is the residents child under 18 is the home disregarded. A grandchild doesn't count unless said grandchild comes under the disabled qualification.
 

Kevinl

Registered User
Aug 24, 2013
6,050
0
Salford
I'm not so sure
4) iii certainly starts with 'relative', so that applies to 1. and 3.
but the wording of 2. is not 'relative' it is 'child of the resident' - if 'the resident' is to be taken as the person moving into a care home, this precludes a grandchild

"4 (iii) a relative as defined in paragraph 35", paragraph 35 then defines a grandchild as being a relative of "the person who no longer occupies the property".
K
 

jenniferpa

Registered User
Jun 27, 2006
39,442
0
But Kevin, if that was the case if any of those relatives lived in the house the house would be disregarded. But that's not how it works.
 

Beate

Registered User
May 21, 2014
12,179
0
London
There are TWO requirements for a relative. They are only disregarded if they are a) a relative as listed AND b) happen to be over 60, incapacitated or a direct child of the resident. That grandchild only fulfils requirement a).
 

lemonjuice

Registered User
Jun 15, 2016
1,534
0
England
I'm afraid it is as suggested likely to be disregarded -though you never know I suppose.

What struck me was how SS / LA could interpret this as something often cited 'voluntary deprivation of assets' They might 'interpret' that this was a deliberate ploy on your behalf to ensure your parents were unable to pay for their care fees, like planning the move knowing they could need residential later and hoping the family's need for the accommodation would prevent their 'assets' in the house being used.

It's totally unfair and ludicrous, but for the sake of a (very) few unscrupulous people, who would plan in this way, all the rest of us have to suffer the suspicion.:(

This also has huge impacts for our futures, as this will be deter people from moving their relatives into their own homes for care, as it then becomes necessary to sell once they reach a stage of needing residential care. Everyone loses out then.
 
Last edited:

Pete R

Registered User
Jul 26, 2014
2,036
0
Staffs
So as long as a grandchild, under 18 lives there then I can't see why the house is anything other than a mandatory disregard as long as an under 18 grandchild lives there.
That's because you have not understood the legislation and the highlighting in your reply is just going to confuse the OP.

I ( a relative under #35) lived in my Mom's home for 11 years caring for her and when she went into a CH there was no MD.
 

jenniferpa

Registered User
Jun 27, 2006
39,442
0
I think you are going to be out of luck getting the property disregarded on the basis of a minor grandchild living there. So you are left with 2 other options - getting a deferred payment agreement with the la secured on the portion of the property that the resident owns (and that will have to be agreed on by all the owners) or alternatively make the la provide you with a true value of the share of the property the resident owns. I think the latter would be the best option since a real valuation of half a house is unlikely to be a lot. Hmm and another idea: I don't know how much money was put in by each party, but you might be able to make the case for a discretionary disregard that you gave up your previous home in order to provide care. Thats normally the route taken by people who actually have no ownership of the property but have given up their own home to provide care, but I don't see why it couldn't be used by a partial owner.
 

Kevinl

Registered User
Aug 24, 2013
6,050
0
Salford
Originally the poster reopened a thread from 2009 where everyone was talking about CRAC, brought back memories, since then Mark has kindly made it into a new thread.
OK maybe I read the regulations differently to others so another question.
The house is owned by Anna, her husband and his parents as tenants in common, the parents have gone in care, they have 2 young children. The LA have sent them a bill for the last 2 months care for the parents, what do they do, are they liable for the costs as joint tenants?
K
 

lemonjuice

Registered User
Jun 15, 2016
1,534
0
England
Some good suggestions from @jenniferpa as to a way to move foreward. I'd forgotten the 'deferred option payment' which I believe by law a LA has to offer you. Do bear in mind interest can be charged on it though.
 

Pete R

Registered User
Jul 26, 2014
2,036
0
Staffs
I was under the impression that in case there are any children under the age of 16 living in the property and also in case the property has been purchased as tenants in common this should be disregarded.
The part about the grandchild has been answered and your understanding is incorrect ( along with kevinl).

Making the property tenants in common means your in law's still own a share of the property and now they have gone into care this is what the LA want to take into consideration.

Pre April 2015 and under the old system of CRAG any part share of a property was worthless. This was not transferred over to the CA2014 (post April 2015) and I believe deliberately so.

You need to seek proper professional advice.
 

Kevinl

Registered User
Aug 24, 2013
6,050
0
Salford
This also has huge impacts for our futures, as this will be deter people from moving their relatives into their own homes for care, as it then becomes necessary to sell once they reach a stage of needing residential care. Everyone loses out then.

Moving a relative into your home does not give them any title to the property in a financial assessment, absolute nonsense.
K
 

jenniferpa

Registered User
Jun 27, 2006
39,442
0
The la has to offer a deferred payment agreement but I would say that's the worst possible option for the op. Not only would everyone have to agree it's likely that the value of the property would simply be split in half. I have to feel a realistic value of half a house on the open market would be considerably less. Not only that, when the deferred payment agreement became due, the op would almost certainly have to sell to repay it. Not good.
 

lemonjuice

Registered User
Jun 15, 2016
1,534
0
England
Moving a relative into your home does not give them any title to the property in a financial assessment, absolute nonsense.
I am not suggesting just taking them into one's own home is a problem, but as others have said few homes are large enough to simply move in and usually involves either building on or buying somewhere new, both of which usually involve financial considerations.

Making the property tenants in common means your in law's still own a share of the property and now they have gone into care this is what the LA want to take into consideration.
This was my point Kevinl