• We're currently experiencing technical issues with our newsletter software, so our Dementia Talking Point monthly updates have been put on hold for now. We hope to restart the newsletter soon.

    Find out more >here<.

Upper capital limit £118000 tenants in common/joint tenants?

Karjo

Registered User
Jan 11, 2012
481
i have been trying to understand the new care act. I believe there will be an upper capital limit of £118000 which includes property and savings before help is given and even then it is tapered. I know the value of the property is disregarded unless a person has moved out and no dependant or partner is living there, but if a house is owned jointly with their children who are not living there, for example they were left half by their other parent but don't actually live there,and the parent goes into care , is the property still disregarded or would the house need to be sold? Hope this makes sense, just trying to get my head round it all. Does anyone else find it complicated?
 

Pete R

Registered User
Jul 26, 2014
2,036
Staffs
As I understand it, and I admit to not having read it all, the same rules apply to property as they do now.
 

WILLIAMR

Account Closed
Apr 12, 2014
1,078
i have been trying to understand the new care act. I believe there will be an upper capital limit of £118000 which includes property and savings before help is given and even then it is tapered. I know the value of the property is disregarded unless a person has moved out and no dependant or partner is living there, but if a house is owned jointly with their children who are not living there, for example they were left half by their other parent but don't actually live there,and the parent goes into care , is the property still disregarded or would the house need to be sold? Hope this makes sense, just trying to get my head round it all. Does anyone else find it complicated?

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/E...rmanent_care_home_provision_fcs.pdf?dtrk=true

Take a look at the above.
As the law stands at present the property will have to be disregarded if it is kept until after the parents death but if it is sold while the parent is in care the LA will be able to take a share of the money.
That said the LA will probably try to persuade you to sell it and divide the proceeds or to rent it out.
I know of one lady this happened to and she sold her own house and moved in to the bungalow which she owned jointly with her mother when she was in care.
The LA did not like it but could do nothing.
To top the lot she willed her share to her offspring in case she pre deceased her mother but happily this did not happen.
When the mother died she inherited all of the bungalow.

William
 

nitram

Registered User
Apr 6, 2011
20,870
North Manchester
The rules are unchanged.
For clarity the £118000 limit will only apply to cases where property ownership is involved, if no property is involved the limit will be £27000
 
Last edited:

Karjo

Registered User
Jan 11, 2012
481
Thanks for that. No particular reason for asking but with future pension lump sum payout and possibility, though very small, of buying a joint house with our daughter in a more expensive area with some of the proceeds, I want to try and understand any implications as I dont trust me or my husband not to catch this horrid disease. And I would hate her to lose her investment or have to sell when she didn't want to. I will of course get legal advice if we were to proceed.
 

nitram

Registered User
Apr 6, 2011
20,870
North Manchester
"...And I would hate her to lose her investment or have to sell when she didn't want to..."

Under current legislation you should be safe and even if the law is changed it is very rare for the a law to be applied retrospectively to the detriment of the person concerned.
 

WILLIAMR

Account Closed
Apr 12, 2014
1,078
"...And I would hate her to lose her investment or have to sell when she didn't want to..."

Under current legislation you should be safe and even if the law is changed it is very rare for the a law to be applied retrospectively to the detriment of the person concerned.
I am not so sure about retrospective legislation these days.
Some people I worked with was on course to retire at 50 by paying extra pension contributions and the government gave notice that the minimum age for paying an occupational pension would increase to 55. I am reasonably sure this took effect in 2010.
Fortunately the pension scheme spotted his situation and stopped taking any more contributions.
He did not get his 50 age which must have been annoying but fortunately by stopping the contributions he has not lost any money.

I would recommend you keep all paperwork when any money is spent on the property etc.

William
 

nitram

Registered User
Apr 6, 2011
20,870
North Manchester
It would not be retrospective until they had taken it aged between 50 and 55, were still under 55 and were told 'it's stopping until you are 55'.

Changing what is going to happen in the future is not retrospective.
 

LYN T

Registered User
Aug 30, 2012
6,959
Brixham Devon
It would not be retrospective until they had taken it aged between 50 and 55, were still under 55 and were told 'it's stopping until you are 55'.

Changing what is going to happen in the future is not retrospective.
Exactly-otherwise I would be saying the state pension laws are retrospective. I was expecting my SP to be paid at the age of 60 until a few years ago. I now have to wait til I'm 66.It would have been retrospective if a woman had her pension paid at 60 then taken away until she was 66. That's my understanding anyway.
 

WILLIAMR

Account Closed
Apr 12, 2014
1,078
It would not be retrospective until they had taken it aged between 50 and 55, were still under 55 and were told 'it's stopping until you are 55'.

Changing what is going to happen in the future is not retrospective.
The case I mentioned is probably unusual as he had paid all the necessary contributions to retire at 55 by the time he was 45.
Fortunately because of his age there was time to rectify the situation.
Under the scheme rules he could have paid more advance contributions prior to the notification of the future 55 retirement age on the basis of a 50 retirement age and these could have been lost.
I think the government should have allowed for this situation even if it only affected 1 person.

William
 

Lindy50

Registered User
Dec 11, 2013
5,239
Cotswolds
"... What's going up to £27,000, and when?..."

Lower limit of capital assessment for residential care in April 2016.
Many thanks nitram :)

I've just been trawling the web and it would appear that the eligibilty threshold for domiciliary services from April 2015 hasn't yet been set. Currently still standing at £23,250. Different issue, I know, but for a moment I thought I'd missed an announcement!