Carers right to stay in the home

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

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.

Has an old poster been exhumed?

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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 ?

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

Thanks for the info, nellie. ariadne, indeed.

They can stay all they want if they can afford it - but as a taxpayer I'd really resent my taxes going to pay for people to stay in multi-million homes whilst WE pay for the care of spouse.

Stupid laws need changing - no wonder many young people working so hard raising families, with little hope of a decent pension in the future - are resenting pensioners' special rights when they are so unfair.

OMG!

granjura

It is not a question of justification. It is the law which has to be complied with.
In most cases the spouse is a joint owner and has a right to live in the property so none of it can be taken from them.
The same situation happens if say one parent has passed away, the child inherits half the house and then moves in.

Frank

granjura

It is not a question of justification. It is the law which has to be complied with.
In most cases the spouse is a joint owner and has a right to live in the property so none of it can be taken from them.
The same situation happens if say one parent has passed away, the child inherits half the house and then moves in.

Frank

Grannyknot

The position is if one parent wills their half of the property to their children and then dies and the other parent has to go in to care the council can not take any of the house because the child has a right to live in the property.
If the child is simply living in the property without any title to it the council can take the house to pay the care home fees.
If somebody has been a carer for a substantial time then the council has discretion to let the carer stay and the fees can be taken when the carer leaves.
In qball101 case it appears that the council could let her stay but is not letting it happen.
In a case where a child has say never left home if they have no title to the property it can be taken but you would hope the council would put a charge on the property and take their money when the child dies.

Frank

Grannyknot not necessarily.

www.firststopcareadvice.org.uk/faq-parents-sell-their-home-to-pay-for-care-fees.aspx

AGE UK
Factsheet 10  April 2013
Paying for permanent residential care
There are plenty more sites out there about this point.

HunterF - how can you justify a spouse keeping a multi-million house and expect the State to pay for care - and then children to inherit the lot. There definitely should be a cap - where to put it though, is the question.

Oh and btw - it is not THE STATE that pays, it is US THE TAX PAYERS - most of whom are not multi-millionaires!!

Let us go a bit gently on the SWs - they did not chboose to become financial gatekeepers of a system they mostly disapprove of.

And gently bentley on those carers who have given so much for no return and would find themselves without a home under the system you are advocating. Thankfully we live in a society that is not so harsh as to ignore what they have contributed (and all the money they have saved the state) and LAs have the discretion to act with honour. Let us hope that they do.

Am I understanding it correctly that people can be thrown out of their homes if the home belongs to an elderly parent who now has to go into care? The house simply gets taken by the local authority?! What a weird, distorted, system.