Carers right to stay in the home

Thanks for the info, nellie. ariadne, indeed.

Are we being sidetracked here? It is easy to feel outrage where millions of pounds are central to the issue, but this is surely a red herring both in this case and the vast majority of similar situations?

Absolutely, and nothing to do of course with qball101's case, clearly, and the majority.

But why not introduce a cap- even quite high with some regional variations even. A 200.000 home in the North East could be a mansion, and yet quite modest in Surrey.

Most carers in this situtation live in modest homes. I would wish them not to be thrown out on the street if the cared-for person went into a home.

Another way that it is sometimes dealt with is for the LA to put a legal charge on the property so that they can recoup theirmoutlay when the carer living in the house dies or sells.

By law a council can not put a charge on a property if it is jointly owned / occupied.
The other person has a right to live in the property for the rest of their life so that makes the share of the person going in to care worthless as nobody will buy half a house with somebody in it.
Also when I owned the house jointly with my father it did state no charge could be put on the house without the consent of both owners.
If my father had needed care I would not given my consent and the council would have been responsible for his care.

Frank

The Council have asked me to write them a letter outlining the issues which I have done and they said that it will probably 'change the situation'. The idea of a legal charge sounds like the best outcome for us and the council to be honest. That way my sister doesn't get forced out of her home before she's ready and the council get their money.

As I said before, the house itself is modest, worth under £200k, my sister has cared for my mum for 5 years and lived in the house for 15. Therefore, the idea that my sister is in some way diddling 'taxpayers' out of money by wanting more than 12 weeks grace is frankly, fairly offensive (Bentley49 I'm specifically looking at you) and I suggest that these sorts of unhelpful and naive comments are best confined to the Daily Mail website, or wherever those that are 'all mouse and no trousers' like to congregate.

To everyone else, thanks for the helpful comments.

A friend has been caring for only living parent for several years and has gone out of business because of it. I am concerned the siblings will demand to sell the house when the last parent dies, leaving the caring sibling homeless as the others do not appreciate the selfless care being given. I wonder if they can be forced to allow the carer sibling to remain in the house for any length of time. The parent will probably not be moving into care as he is given all the care he needs at home.
I wonder if my friend should enquire at ageUK what protection is available ?

This thread is over 2 years old. It would be better to start a new one. OP must be long sorted.

Yes, it would be nice if people who post for advice such as this came back to say how they got on! However, about dates, the facts are just as relevant today for some on GN- so it is worth continuing the discussion and hearing about other people's experiences, I believe.

I do know someone who was made to leave his home when his siblings inherited the house, along with him. They gave him four years to sort himself out, but he could only afford to rent a single room. He had cared for his mother for six years, only being able to take occasional part-time gardening jobs during that period.

I think, in his case, it would have been fairer to make a condition in a will to allow him to stay in the house for the duration of his life. It would seem less unfair than leaving the house to him - I have also met someone who inherited a house that way, and her sisters never spoke to her again afterwards.

are you saying he didn't get a share of the house, despite caring for the parent? Seems so unfair- why?

If the house was left jointly to the siblings, the carer would be entitled only to their share and would have to leave the house when it was sold.
Any owner of a jointly owned property can insist on it being sold.

OMG I have had an acute attack of Deja vue. Same old theme. Will school shoes pop up next.? #runsforcover.

Has an old poster been exhumed?

I don't know - but it is a situation that has popped up recently with friends of mine. One 56 year old brother as carer, three siblings, he was left with no home, no income and no friends because he had no time to make any. I did think it was grossly unfair and very short-sighted of his mother not to change her will a little in his favour. He had had a nervous breakdown years back, he had lived there for years, it really was his home and he had done all the repairs and maintenance on it. Also his grief was a lot deeper than that of his siblings, of course he was closer to his mother, he couldn't help but be.

Sorry if it's been on here before, but his three siblings are all very well off, I think it was pure greed that made them evict him. He could have just paid them rent. He now has just a single room in another friend's house. Admittedly he has around £50,000, but he doesn't earn enough for a mortgage and his work is casual.

Look at the government web site re The Care Act. The new law says that payments for care can be deferred and the home does not have to be sold to pay for care. Also a person with disabilities/ illness does not have to move out! Check out your rights