Hi just wondering if anybody can offer advise or guidance from their own experiences which may have parallels to my current situation, My dad has recently passed away and my mum who has Alzheimer's has gone into care. The tenancy of the home was split and my dad's will leaves his half to his children giving myself an option to buy the other shares. The LA wants the house sold to release assets for my mums care when her12 week period ends as I understand things from age uk factsheet 38 section 5.1; valuation of jointly owned property it's not necessarily the case that in this instance the house should be put on the market or a fair market value ascertained for the full property and then these halved to find my mums share it's just my mums half of the house which needs valuing which would be a different thing and have a different value being a less attractive proposition to buyers (who wants to buy half a house) and possibly not attractive to anyone in theory could it have a nil value for the purpose of a LA financial assessment? Also where does the government guidance come from that age uk factsheet 38 is based upon.
Valuation of jointly owned property for local authority
- Thread starter blueand white
- Start date
- Status
I think you will have to show, just how the property is owned, Tenants in Common or Joint tenants.
This, with the Will, will show just who owns what, to the LA.
Who is actually living in the house at present?
There are types of person, that mean the house is disregarded for sale. IE. over 60, disabled, etc.
Bod
This, with the Will, will show just who owns what, to the LA.
Who is actually living in the house at present?
There are types of person, that mean the house is disregarded for sale. IE. over 60, disabled, etc.
Bod
So a person who needs long term care is forced to sell their home to pay for it? This is terrible. They will have nothing left to leave for their children 
I hope it is not like this in Canada. If I were to require long term care perhaps I could transfer everything into my husband's name. Do people not do this in the UK?
It would be tragic enough to get dementia without the government taking my children's inheritance away.
I hope it is not like this in Canada. If I were to require long term care perhaps I could transfer everything into my husband's name. Do people not do this in the UK?
It would be tragic enough to get dementia without the government taking my children's inheritance away.
They would risk being accused of deliberate deprivation of assets unless they could prove that the transfer was before there was any indication of care being needed in the future.
The amount transferred would be added to the person's assessed assets.
It's not clear what you mean by this - what 'other shares' are you referring to? If the tenancy in common was split 50/50 between your parents you and your siblings get your Dad's 50% share and your Mum still keeps her share. Presumably you could purchase your sibling's shares but only if they wanted to sell them.
It's in the Care and Support (charging and assessment of resources) Regulations 2014.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2672/made
Capital jointly held
24.—(1) Where the adult and one or more other persons are beneficially entitled in possession to any capital asset except an interest in land—
(a)unless paragraph (2) applies, each person is to be treated as if each of them were entitled in possession to an equal share of the whole beneficial interest; and
(b)that asset is to be treated as if it were actual capital.
(2) This paragraph applies where the local authority is satisfied that the adult is beneficially entitled in possession to a share which is less than or, as the case may be, more than an equal share of the whole beneficial estate.
(3) Where paragraph (2) applies the adult’s share of the whole beneficial interest will be the actual share (as determined by the local authority) and is to be treated as if it were actual capital.
The Age UK fact sheet you refer to explains about determining the value of the beneficial ownership.
I've been waiting to find out how LA's are going to treat a jointly owner property under the 2014 Care Act, and I'm still waiting.
Under CRAG people did successfully argue a zero valuation, I remember a thread about it on here years ago, people said they'd done it and the person posting the thread eventually did too, his mum's half share had no value as he wouldn't sell his half and might go and live there, as is his right so her share had no value.
Louise7 makes a good point the 2014 legislation does say "Capital jointly held
24.—(1) Where the adult and one or more other persons are beneficially entitled in possession to any capital asset except an interest in land" (my underline and bold) so an interest in land is exempt as a jointly held asset.
So what is the definition of land? I guess we all think of "land" as being the flat bit and "property" as being the buildings on it, but the Law & Property Act 1925, 205 (1)(ix) (last update in 2012) defines land as;
(ix)“Land” includes land of any tenure, and mines and minerals, whether or not held apart from the surface, buildings or parts of buildings" so a building or part of a building is classed as land and so is an exempt asset, in my view. (link to the Act below).
I've waited since to 2104 care act to see how LA's treat jointly owner property and asked on here but no one with actual experience has replied and I can't see a case has gone to court yet.
How the AGEUK factsheet 38 can say if the nil valuation argument is still valid or not I don't know but there appears to me to be a good argument for it, what it needs is a court case to establish it or the LA's to acknowledge it's still a valid argument post 2104.
The 2014 Care Act itself doesn't really say much, it's just an outline of the broad principles but the Statutory Guidance Notes fill in the details (second link). I can find nothing in there personally to cover your situation, in fact no reference to jointly owner property at all, it should be cover in either Chapter 8 or Annex B or C but it doesn't seem to be as far as I can see.
Maybe we should all crowdfund a legal case to establish that jointly held property has a nil value if the other owner doesn't want to sell should LA's try and argue otherwise.
K
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/205/2012-02-01
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/205/2012-02-01
Under CRAG people did successfully argue a zero valuation, I remember a thread about it on here years ago, people said they'd done it and the person posting the thread eventually did too, his mum's half share had no value as he wouldn't sell his half and might go and live there, as is his right so her share had no value.
Louise7 makes a good point the 2014 legislation does say "Capital jointly held
24.—(1) Where the adult and one or more other persons are beneficially entitled in possession to any capital asset except an interest in land" (my underline and bold) so an interest in land is exempt as a jointly held asset.
So what is the definition of land? I guess we all think of "land" as being the flat bit and "property" as being the buildings on it, but the Law & Property Act 1925, 205 (1)(ix) (last update in 2012) defines land as;
(ix)“Land” includes land of any tenure, and mines and minerals, whether or not held apart from the surface, buildings or parts of buildings" so a building or part of a building is classed as land and so is an exempt asset, in my view. (link to the Act below).
I've waited since to 2104 care act to see how LA's treat jointly owner property and asked on here but no one with actual experience has replied and I can't see a case has gone to court yet.
How the AGEUK factsheet 38 can say if the nil valuation argument is still valid or not I don't know but there appears to me to be a good argument for it, what it needs is a court case to establish it or the LA's to acknowledge it's still a valid argument post 2104.
The 2014 Care Act itself doesn't really say much, it's just an outline of the broad principles but the Statutory Guidance Notes fill in the details (second link). I can find nothing in there personally to cover your situation, in fact no reference to jointly owner property at all, it should be cover in either Chapter 8 or Annex B or C but it doesn't seem to be as far as I can see.
Maybe we should all crowdfund a legal case to establish that jointly held property has a nil value if the other owner doesn't want to sell should LA's try and argue otherwise.
K
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/205/2012-02-01
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/205/2012-02-01
Depending on where you live in Canada your children might get hit for "filial responsibility" payments for your care let alone getting an inheritance.So a person who needs long term care is forced to sell their home to pay for it? This is terrible. They will have nothing left to leave for their children
I hope it is not like this in Canada. If I were to require long term care perhaps I could transfer everything into my husband's name. Do people not do this in the UK?
It would be tragic enough to get dementia without the government taking my children's inheritance away.
My daughter lives in France and has a French husband and him and his sister are concerned they may be ask/made to contribute to the costs of their mother's care in the near future not for AZ but for a physical condition under Article 207 of the French Civil Code, children are financially responsible for their parents' care.
Parts of Canada and the USA have similar laws as do many countries in the world.
I'm surprised that as you live in Canada you don't know the position regarding financing care for the elderly and only "hope" about what happens, laws in the provinces do vary so only if you're happy to do so could you specify a province so we can try and help, don't say anything you don't want to but even here people in the UK are covered by different laws in England, NI, Scotland & Wales and given most of the Canadian provinces are bigger than all of there countries...it's a big country with lots of different rules. Maybe start a Canadian thread of your own and see what we can come up with.
K
You're right in that 'land' can include buildings but you need to consider the relevant part of the act in it's entirety rather than just the first sentence otherwise the full context is lost.
The Age UK fact sheet states:
The charging regulations confirm ‘land’ is not to be treated as each owner having an equal share in a capital asset. Under property law, the definition of ‘land’ includes ‘buildings and parts of buildings’.
If you jointly own property, it is your individual beneficial interest in the property that should be taken into account and valued in the financial assessment, not the property as a whole.
This means the local authority must base its valuation on the sale value of your beneficial interest to a ‘willing buyer’, on the open market, at the time of your financial assessment.
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalasse...perty_and_paying_for_residential_care_fcs.pdf
Yes but "willing buyer on the open market" is a quote from the CRAG rules that no longer exist, they ended 5 years ago. There's a lot of outdated information out there and the links I put up are to current legislation and not previous rules.
Primary (oldest) legislation (as you acknowledge) says that buildings are land, intermediary interpretation (CRAG) says they could be counted as an asset, but current legislation doesn't, CRAG was only ever guidelines hence LA's would accept a nil value but only when persistently challenged, I doubt they would want to take it to court and lose.
The AGEUK datasheet seems to still be quoting outdated information to me, I have quoted only current legislation (and some opinion) the AGEUK datasheet seems to be based on history and not current legislation.
I've lost track of how many "professionals" have quoted out of date information to me over the last 10 years and still do, there is nothing in the current Statutory Guidance that says anything about willing buyers or open markets, that's just a piece of a redundant set of rules that have been superseded by the new ones which are "Statutory" so any LA acting outside them is overstepping the mark.
CRAG is a dead as the proverbial dodo quotes from it...are too, maybe AGEUK need to revisit that one or as I said before maybe we need a courtyard to establish what the current law means not some defunct set of venue guidelines from years back.
Please don't get me wrong Louise I very much respect your posts but I believe it's based on one outdated datasheet from a charity of unknown sources, I've posted two links both to "gov.uk" websites that's where the current law is not a charity website.
That said charity websites can be brilliant and TP has to be the best it's about getting; help, facts, opinions and support you're talking to people going through the same he'll as you are.
I hope the AZ society keeps its datasheets up to date on the fast moving world we live in, all respect, it must be a nightmare when something new happens 100 times a day.
K
Primary (oldest) legislation (as you acknowledge) says that buildings are land, intermediary interpretation (CRAG) says they could be counted as an asset, but current legislation doesn't, CRAG was only ever guidelines hence LA's would accept a nil value but only when persistently challenged, I doubt they would want to take it to court and lose.
The AGEUK datasheet seems to still be quoting outdated information to me, I have quoted only current legislation (and some opinion) the AGEUK datasheet seems to be based on history and not current legislation.
I've lost track of how many "professionals" have quoted out of date information to me over the last 10 years and still do, there is nothing in the current Statutory Guidance that says anything about willing buyers or open markets, that's just a piece of a redundant set of rules that have been superseded by the new ones which are "Statutory" so any LA acting outside them is overstepping the mark.
CRAG is a dead as the proverbial dodo quotes from it...are too, maybe AGEUK need to revisit that one or as I said before maybe we need a courtyard to establish what the current law means not some defunct set of venue guidelines from years back.
Please don't get me wrong Louise I very much respect your posts but I believe it's based on one outdated datasheet from a charity of unknown sources, I've posted two links both to "gov.uk" websites that's where the current law is not a charity website.
That said charity websites can be brilliant and TP has to be the best it's about getting; help, facts, opinions and support you're talking to people going through the same he'll as you are.
I hope the AZ society keeps its datasheets up to date on the fast moving world we live in, all respect, it must be a nightmare when something new happens 100 times a day.
K
Ok. As far as I can tell, where I live in Canada, the amount you pay for long term care is up to 80% of your income. They let you keep at least $350. of your income. But it is only your income, It doesn't say anything about making you sell property. I'm shocked that they make you sell your home, in the UK. Mind you, there are long wait lists to get into a public long term care home in Canada. There are a lot of private care homes which probably cost a lot. Maybe the publicly funded homes aren't as good.
As saw my GP today. He gave me more information about my MRI. He said the small vessel changes were "mild and patchy" according to the report. I'm 64, and just retired. I'm scared.
I'm not sure why you think that the 1925 Law & Property Act is more current than the
Care and Support (charging and assessment of resources) Regulations 2014? This legislation is relevant to the OP's position, and states that the 'beneficial interest' of the property should be treated as capital, with the local authority responsible for determining what the beneficial interest is.
The Age UK fact sheet goes on to explain the definition of beneficial interest, and states that in legal terms a jointly owned property is deemed to be ‘owned in trust’. The fact sheet also states ‘for your beneficial interest in a jointly owned property to have a value to a willing buyer on the open market they must be able to realise that value’. The fact that this form of words was also used within CRAG doesn’t mean that they are no longer legally valid.
This is a complex area and the OP will need to take relevant legal advice with regards to the matter rather than rely solely on the content of the Age UK fact sheet.
Hi thanks for your responses so far, firstly I'll just clarify that my parents were tenants in common, under my dads will I have a right to purchase the remaining share of his half and there is agreement from the family who act as my mums power of attorney for me to buy the property as a whole. The LA's position is that the property be sold at market value and 50% be used against my mums self funding. The considerations the LA make in this are much narrower than the families and my own, paramount to me is what is best for my mum. Like many other people of a similar age she made great personal sacrifice to afford her family the home we enjoyed depriving herself of many things we wished she hadn't in order to knowingly pass that on when she died unfortunately no one can account for dementia. Any decision I make I feel has to be set against this, the easiest thing to do would be to simply go along with the LA, that's absolutely fine if it's the determined position but it seems increasingly possible that the LA operate an accepted position in these circumstances. This is evident from the legal advice I have sought There's a huge range of opinion out there most in contradiction to each other and nothing as of yet that I feel 100% comfortable with. The reason I quoted from the age uk factsheet was because the LA referred us to it. I understand that CRAG has been superceeded But I wanted to find out whether section 5.1 of fact sheet 38 was derived from this outdated source. I will post soon about the legal advice I have been given many thanks so far.
Are you able to share any of the legal advice you mention?
My LA justify valuing my mother's joint share of the property at half the total sale value, by saying they have to offer a DPA and if we apply for a DPA we will have to agree to sell the property and in that instance the whole property would be sold and they can realise half the full value ! They reference 9.64 of the guidance, not 14-18.
I would like to challenge this, but fear that there are no recent cases that set the precedent
Hi, I’m a new member and joined because I am in a similar situation and wondered whether there has been any progress on this issue since 2019?
Welcome to TP @looptheloop
The original poster hasn’t been online since 2019 so you are unlikely to get an answer.
You could start your own thread to ask your question.
Please keep posting as you’ll get lots of support here.
The original poster hasn’t been online since 2019 so you are unlikely to get an answer.
You could start your own thread to ask your question.
Please keep posting as you’ll get lots of support here.
Hello I am in the same situation and, after months, of waiting my LA have said they will give me a decision on mum's contribution in a couple of weeks now, for when a care home could be necessary. We bought the house together 6 years ago, just before dememtia as she wanted me to no longer have a mortgage and security. She has 39% share. The worry of all this and if I can lose my home has been as hard as coping with mum's dementia for the last 4 year.
Hi all posters and have just found this thread. Reading past posts the situation of how a property share is valued for purposes of care fees assessment remains untested in recent case law. A past case of Palfrey said a share is worth Nil but another case of Wilkinson said a value could be attributed to a share, and neither were for care fees but state benefits. Poster Kevini had correct links to Care Act (CA) Statutory Guidance which says capital should be valued at current market amount. CRAG rules said it could be worth Nil but CA replaced that and CA is now silent. I have been in battle with a Council for 2 years about this. If you can get RICS surveyors guidance to confirm Nil value in the circumstances then that would help, but ones I have contacted just want to discount the share by 10-15% in the same way it is is done for IHT or Probate purposes. Also even District Valuers Services who a Council would use have no valuation guidance. IMO again as Kevini said is a new Case like Palfrey to be determined. More comments from anyone?
Hello @Cybermanxyz
Just to offer a Welcome to DTP
This is an old thread started in 2019 .... so I am now closing it
Just to offer a Welcome to DTP
This is an old thread started in 2019 .... so I am now closing it
- Status
