The Finance question from the Dementia sufferer

[Greyone]

Good morning Bod, Sleepless & Peter. In posting , it was my intention to seek feedback on how, when or whether to tell our mother about selling the house. Feedback on that question has been pretty conclusive and suggests that not telling is the best option generally.

My point about selling the house was made without reference to our possible plans and was just in relation to what to tell mum. On the subject of disregards, I am certain neither my sister no I come into any of the categories for the mandatory disregard, unless this stretches out for another 5 years, then my sister would be 60 and assuming that my mother lives that long !!!

It was not my original intention to speak about the MD or DD but since the debate is thriving here we go.

My sister (55) and myself(53) are both well (not disabled) , employed (at the moment) and not financially dependant on our mother. I have read the criteria for the mandatory disregard and believe that bon of them apply to us, but will check.

If we hang in for another 5 years, my sister will be 60 and thereby we can qualify for the Mandatory disregard. But if our mother dies within that 5 years we would be sunk wouldn't we ?

 

[sleepless]

I understand the point you are making but no the LA do not have any discretion, it is a mandatory disregard. They may well do checks on whether is it "the main or only home" but not much else.

The quote below is an edited version from the New Care Act. I have bolded the word "must". It was the same under the old CRAG rules so is not anything new.

"In the following circumstances the value of the person’s main or only home must be disregarded:

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.

a relative.....of the person or member of the person’s family
who is:
(1) Aged 60 or over, or
(2) Is a child of the resident aged under 18, or
(3) Is incapacitated."

However bear in mind that the property still belongs to the person in care and is still theirs or their PoA to decide what to do with it. A disregarded property cannot (there are discretions) be part of Deferred Payment Agreement and unless the PoA and family are happy with just the LA rate then a top up still has to be paid by someone.

'44. The local authority should consider if the principle reason for the move is that it is
necessary to ensure the relative has somewhere to live as their main or only home. A
disregard would not be appropriate, for example where a person moves into a property
solely to protect the family inheritance. Local authorities need to ensure that people are not needlessly maintained at public expense.'

One hopes that this is worth more than the paper it is written on.

My concern is that while some of our society 'do the right thing', others manipulate the system, thus requiring those who have given everything to subsidise those who have not, but should have.

 

[sleepless]

Good morning Bod, Sleepless & Peter. In posting , it was my intention to seek feedback on how, when or whether to tell our mother about selling the house. Feedback on that question has been pretty conclusive and suggests that not telling is the best option generally.

My point about selling the house was made without reference to our possible plans and was just in relation to what to tell mum. On the subject of disregards, I am certain neither my sister no I come into any of the categories for the mandatory disregard, unless this stretches out for another 5 years, then my sister would be 60 and assuming that my mother lives that long !!!

It was not my original intention to speak about the MD or DD but since the debate is thriving here we go.

My sister (55) and myself(53) are both well (not disabled) , employed (at the moment) and not financially dependant on our mother. I have read the criteria for the mandatory disregard and believe that bon of them apply to us, but will check.

If we hang in for another 5 years, my sister will be 60 and thereby we can qualify for the Mandatory disregard. But if our mother dies within that 5 years we would be sunk wouldn't we ?

Sorry, Greyone, if we seem to have gone off at a tangent here on your thread. It does happen on the forum!
Please know that my posts in no way referred to your own situation, and I am sorry if you got that impression. It was not intended at all.

 

[Pete R]

'44. The local authority should consider if the principle reason for the move is that it is
necessary to ensure the relative has somewhere to live as their main or only home. A
disregard would not be appropriate, for example where a person moves into a property
solely to protect the family inheritance. Local authorities need to ensure that people are not needlessly maintained at public expense.'

One hopes that this is worth more than the paper it is written on.

My concern is that while some of our society 'do the right thing', others manipulate the system, thus requiring those who have given everything to subsidise those who have not, but should have.

Sorry but Sec 44 deals with Discretionary Disregard, not Mandatory Disregards, and in particular someone moving into the property after the person has entered care. You need to read Sec 44 along with Sec 43.

The manipulation you are concerned about could well happen if the PoA is that way inclined but it could easily be carried out at any time when someone has PoA.

 

[Pete R]

My sister (55) and myself(53) are both well (not disabled) , employed (at the moment) and not financially dependant on our mother. I have read the criteria for the mandatory disregard and believe that bon of them apply to us, but will check.

If we hang in for another 5 years, my sister will be 60 and thereby we can qualify for the Mandatory disregard. But if our mother dies within that 5 years we would be sunk wouldn't we ?

Hi Greyone,

From what you have said you are correct in that the MD does not apply to you till your Sister reaches 60.

You may wish to apply for a DD on the basis of it having always been your home but then the DPA may not be allowed by the LA.

I do not understand why you think "you would be sunk" if your Mother dies within 5 years. Can you explain?

 

[fizzie]

'44. The local authority should consider if the principle reason for the move is that it is
necessary to ensure the relative has somewhere to live as their main or only home. A
disregard would not be appropriate, for example where a person moves into a property
solely to protect the family inheritance. Local authorities need to ensure that people are not needlessly maintained at public expense.'

One hopes that this is worth more than the paper it is written on.

My concern is that while some of our society 'do the right thing', others manipulate the system, thus requiring those who have given everything to subsidise those who have not, but should have.

We should have a 'like' button on these posts
Sleepless 'like' lol

 

[sleepless]

Sorry but Sec 44 deals with Discretionary Disregard, not Mandatory Disregards, and in particular someone moving into the property after the person has entered care. You need to read Sec 44 along with Sec 43.

The manipulation you are concerned about could well happen if the PoA is that way inclined but it could easily be carried out at any time when someone has PoA.

Yes, I see what you mean (I should really use my laptop when looking at these documents, not this little gadget.)
So there is a loophole to protect the family home from being sold, and thus allowing it to pass to the next generation / beneficiary of a will.
If, as you so rightly say, people are that way inclined.

 

[Pete R]

Yes, I see what you mean (I should really use my laptop when looking at these documents, not this little gadget.)
So there is a loophole to protect the family home from being sold, and thus allowing it to pass to the next generation / beneficiary of a will.
If, as you so rightly say, people are that way inclined.

Thanks for that. I meant nothing personal in my comments. I am just trying to correct what I see as inaccuracies in interpretation of the rules.

I cannot say that from being on this forum I have ever heard it called a loophole before or that the Mandatory Disregard has been used in a fraudulent manner. According to accompanying guidance it was a conscious decision to keep the age at 60 and not increase it in line with current retirement ages. Maybe it because those that are genuine might be deemed too old to "move on."

 

[Pete R]

We should have a 'like' button on these posts
Sleepless 'like' lol

Why would you want to "like" a post that is inaccurate?

 

[sleepless]

Why would you want to "like" a post that is inaccurate?

In fairness Pete, the paragraph I quoted is accurate, and I think Fizzie supports the idea behind the paragraph, it just wasn't the right paragraph! (Bit of an Eric Morecambe/Andre Previn thing going on. I was 'playing the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order' !)

And perhaps Fizzie agreed with my concerns about some people doing the right thing, and others not, leaving those who give everything (down to lower limit of course) effectively subsidising those who evade paying for care when it could be afforded.

I suppose it's a bit like tax evasion. There are those who will say 'good on you, mate' and those who won't, because they see the bigger picture.

The tradesman I spoke with (see my earlier post) is not the only person who I have heard saying that savings should be moved before any financial assessment, so this sort of thing is probably more common than we think.

 

[Pete R]

In fairness Pete, the paragraph I quoted is accurate, and I think Fizzie supports the idea behind the paragraph, it just wasn't the right paragraph! (Bit of an Eric Morecambe/Andre Previn thing going on. I was 'playing the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order' !)

If you feel that posting incorrect information is OK and comparable to light entertainment then so be it.

Please name one instance that you know of where someone over 60 has sold their own home to move in with a parent to protect their would be inheritance.

Maybe its best left to Fizzie to say what they meant.

 

[sleepless]

If you feel that posting incorrect information is OK and comparable to light entertainment then so be it.

Please name one instance that you know of where someone over 60 has sold their own home to move in with a parent to protect their would be inheritance.

Maybe its best left to Fizzie to say what they meant.

I only posted what I did after reading the link from Bod.
As you have noticed, I am no expert in these things, nor do I claim to be.
I care for my husband in his thirteenth year of Alzheimers, 24/7, have contributed to TP since 2010 and if I sometimes try to lighten things up a bit, well, I jolly well will!

I accurately copied and pasted a paragraph.
I admitted you were right that it referred to DD not MD.
So shoot me.

 

[Greyone]

Not a problem. The questions of DPA's is very important as is Discretionary disregards or mandatory disregards. At the moment I'm very interested in this issue because our deferred payment is looming. So do carry on, I'll be after all the views of DPAs soon enough !!!!

 

[fizzie]

If you feel that posting incorrect information is OK and comparable to light entertainment then so be it.

Please name one instance that you know of where someone over 60 has sold their own home to move in with a parent to protect their would be inheritance.

Maybe its best left to Fizzie to say what they meant.

oh Pete sorry I wasn't clear enough for you. I wasn't following the finance bit because as you pointed out to me before I'm not good at that. I'm lucky I never had to deal with it, we kept my Mum at home and were fortunate enough through much hard work over the years to be able to pay our way without the help of SS thank goodness. Butd even when I apologised because I was wrong you still went on about it and made it clear it wasn't good enough for you. I don't have time or inclination to spat with you.

I think your expertise on the finance side is on the whole very good and extremely useful to lots of people on TP (except for contactless cards when an expert on Radio 4 has professional experience and thinks differently) and that's my only concern - that people get the help that they need to make their lives easier. Most of the time I just signpost to give that help and sometimes I use my own experience to help out and sometimes I just feel empathy and express that in the hopes that too will help someone in some situation.

I liked the post because of the idea behind it "My concern is that while some of our society 'do the right thing', others manipulate the system, thus requiring those who have given everything to subsidise those who have not, but should have"

Is that clearer? - it had nothing to do with any financial information - hope that helps. My 'like' was not directed at you, or finance simply at Sleepless. Good that's cleared that up.

 

[fizzie]

I only posted what I did after reading the link from Bod.
As you have noticed, I am no expert in these things, nor do I claim to be.
I care for my husband in his thirteenth year of Alzheimers, 24/7, have contributed to TP since 2010 and if I sometimes try to lighten things up a bit, well, I jolly well will!

I accurately copied and pasted a paragraph.
I admitted you were right that it referred to DD not MD.
So shoot me.

Passes the bullet proof vest to Sleepless lol

On another note I also think this thread is very interesting and Pete clearly has a great deal of useful knowledge on it which I think (I'm not expert) will help a lot of people.