My mother passed away in February this year and my step-father (her 
husband) is temporarily in a home awaiting a likely permanent residence. 
  He was admitted to hospital for physical and mental checks following 
falls in the home after my mother's death.

The local Social Services are looking into his finances regarding his 
care costs.  He does receive Pension Credit which I successfully got for 
him, as he doesn't have a large amount of savings.

One of the questions Social Services required was whether he had owned 
any property in the last two years, to which I answered no.  My mother 
left her estate (including the house) to the three children with a 
proviso that my step-father can live in the property until he dies.

Quite naturally, Social Services requires proof of ownership, as they 
would like to stake their claim in order to finance his care.  I have 
provided them with proof in the form of a solicitors letter and a Land 
Registry document.  The house has been registered in my mother's name 
since at least May, 2001.  I don't think the house has ever been in my 
step-fathers name.  (She was probably advised to to this by her 
solicitor in order to keep the property in the family).

It gets complicated from a lay persons point of view, as regards 
'Beneficial Rights', 'Tenants in Common', but in theory that shouldn't 
matter, as the property has been with a 'new' owner for at least seven 
years?

It's a bit of a minefield unless one lives in Scotland.  Care costs for 
the elderly might change with a new Tory government (if you can trust 
them), but we'll lose our bus passes etc.

Has anybody else had similar experiences or can they elucidate on this 
matter?

On Nov 4, 12:10 pm, Saxman 
wrote:
> My mother passed away in February this year and my step-father (her
> husband) is temporarily in a home awaiting a likely permanent residence.
>   He was admitted to hospital for physical and mental checks following
> falls in the home after my mother's death.
>

The key thing here is he has never owned the house (as far as I can
see). What usually bothers social services agencies is where a person
approaching old age deliberately sheds assets to the family so as not
to be partly or totally disqualified from receiving benefits.

The fairest solution on the taxpayer and all is for the house to be
rented out while your father remains alive and the net income used to
meet the cost of his care. A problem could be in dislodging the tenant
on your father's death.  At a guess Scial Services cannot expect any
more.

Perhaps, while your father is alive and has right to live in the
house, it does not extend to renting it out and living elsewhere.
This is especially as it may be legally impossible under tenancy law
for him to rent it out in a way that it reverts with vacant
possesstion to the final beneficiaries on his death.

The only 'interest' he would need to declare ia a 'life interest' to
live in the house.  Out of the bundle of sticks representing rights to
a piece of property, he holds a few and you and your sisters jointly
hold the rest.  Hopefully the agency will accept that there is no
monetary value in the property right to live in the house if he is
unable to.  I must confess that bureaucratic minds may not see it like
this.

peterwn wrote:

> The fairest solution on the taxpayer and all is for the house to be
> rented out while your father remains alive and the net income used to
> meet the cost of his care. A problem could be in dislodging the tenant
> on your father's death.  At a guess Social Services cannot expect any
> more.

Thank you.  The above has thrown some light on the issue.

peterwn wrote:

> The key thing here is he has never owned the house (as far as I can
> see). What usually bothers social services agencies is where a person
> approaching old age deliberately sheds assets to the family so as not
> to be partly or totally disqualified from receiving benefits.

One thing I forgot to add is that my sister has refused to sign the Land 
Registry document transferring the property into the names of the three 
beneficiaries.  She might of done this to prevent possible rental of the 
property or hopefully get my brother and myself to buy her out which is 
out of the question.

The property will have to be disposed as part of the estate as a result.

On Nov 4, 8:45 pm, Saxman 
wrote:
> peterwn wrote:
> > The key thing here is he has never owned the house (as far as I can
> > see). What usually bothers social services agencies is where a person
> > approaching old age deliberately sheds assets to the family so as not
> > to be partly or totally disqualified from receiving benefits.
>
> One thing I forgot to add is that my sister has refused to sign the Land
> Registry document transferring the property into the names of the three
> beneficiaries.  She might of done this to prevent possible rental of the
> property or hopefully get my brother and myself to buy her out which is
> out of the question.
>
> The property will have to be disposed as part of the estate as a result.

Need to watch it here. As far as I can see, the effect of your sister
refusing to sign merely leaves the house in the hands of the executor
as far as I can see until your father's death. It cannot deny your
father's right of life occupation if he so chose. If the executor
wants 'shot' of it, then he or she would need to convey it to
trustees, who will charge. If your sister wants the house sold at the
time of your father's death, there is nothing to stop you and your
siblings executing an agreement to this effect.

Your sister's refusal to sign may not get the social service agency
off your backs.

Your father could relinquish this right assuming he still has his
marbles.marbles.

On 3 Nov, 23:10, Saxman 
wrote:

> It's a bit of a minefield unless one lives in Scotland.

It's almost exactly the same in Scotland. The only thing that's "free"
here is care. Old people still have to pay their "hotel" costs. In the
case of my grandmother the "free" bit is £70/month and the "hotel" bit
is £1200/month. That's in a local council home.

Ian

peterwn wrote:

> Need to watch it here. As far as I can see, the effect of your sister
> refusing to sign merely leaves the house in the hands of the executor
> as far as I can see until your father's death. It cannot deny your
> father's right of life occupation if he so chose. If the executor
> wants 'shot' of it, then he or she would need to convey it to
> trustees, who will charge. If your sister wants the house sold at the
> time of your father's death, there is nothing to stop you and your
> siblings executing an agreement to this effect.
> 
> Your sister's refusal to sign may not get the social service agency
> off your backs.
> 
> Your father could relinquish this right assuming he still has his
> marbles.marbles.

My father has gone into a home under the advice of the NHS and is 
awaiting a decision about his future.

My father has a right to live in the house until his death and my mother 
has made adequate provision for him.

I would assume that if he elects to stay in a care home on the advice of 
the NHS/Social Services, then he gives up the right to return home?

On Nov 6, 12:40 pm, Saxman 
wrote:
> peterwn wrote:
> > Need to watch it here. As far as I can see, the effect of your sister
> > refusing to sign merely leaves the house in the hands of the executor
> > as far as I can see until your father's death. It cannot deny your
> > father's right of life occupation if he so chose. If the executor
> > wants 'shot' of it, then he or she would need to convey it to
> > trustees, who will charge. If your sister wants the house sold at the
> > time of your father's death, there is nothing to stop you and your
> > siblings executing an agreement to this effect.
>
> > Your sister's refusal to sign may not get the social service agency
> > off your backs.
>
> > Your father could relinquish this right assuming he still has his
> > marbles.marbles.
>
> My father has gone into a home under the advice of the NHS and is
> awaiting a decision about his future.
>
> My father has a right to live in the house until his death and my mother
> has made adequate provision for him.
>
> I would assume that if he elects to stay in a care home on the advice of
> the NHS/Social Services, then he gives up the right to return home?

it would depend on the wording of the will:
1. He could have a 'life interest' in the house to do as he chooses
with it until he dies, and this would include letting it as long as
vacant possession is possible when he dies (his death may 'trump'
tenancy laws).
2.  He could be allowed to live in the house until he dies, but not to
rent it out. He would need to meet the 'outgoings' and if he was never
going to live there again it would make sense for him to give up the
right.

In either case as long as he has his 'marbles' he could agreee in
writing to give up his interest, but it would be wise if he had
independent legal advice on this to avoid any claim of 'undue
influence' later.  If 1) applies, giving up the interest might
possibly raise the ire of the agency responsible for helping to meet
rest home costs.

peterwn wrote:

> it would depend on the wording of the will:
> 1. He could have a 'life interest' in the house to do as he chooses
> with it until he dies, and this would include letting it as long as
> vacant possession is possible when he dies (his death may 'trump'
> tenancy laws).

This is the wording of the will.  It looks like my step-father has no 
interest.

(a) To my dear Husband xxxxxxxxxxxxx with my love the sum of One 
thousand pounds to spend on some special item or event


6 I GIVE all the residue of my property whatsoever and wheresoever not 
otherwise disposed of by this my Will or any Codicil herto to my 
Trustees to sell call or convert the same money with power to postpone 
such sale calling in and conversion for so long as they shall in their 
absolute discretion think fit without being liable for loss and to stand 
possessed of the proceeds of such sale calling and conversion after 
payment thereout of my just debts and funeral and testamentary expenses 
and any tax payable by reason of this my Will upon trust for such of my 
said three children xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxxx as shall be living at the 
date of my death and if more than one in equal shares as tenants in 
common absolutely Provided that if any of my said children shall have 
died in my lifetime leaving children living at the date of my death such 
children shall take and if more in equal shares absolutely per stirpes 
the share of my said estate which such child of mine would have taken 
had he or she survived me but so that no child shall take whose parent 
is alive and capable of taking but I further direct that during the 
lifetime of my said Husband xxxxxxxxxxx my Trustees shall permit him to 
reside at my said dwellinghouse at xxxxxxxxxx aforesaid or any other 
house in which I may be residing at the date of my death and to permit 
him the use and enjoyment of any furnishings and effects therin 
belonging to me at the date of my death for so long as he may wish to 
continue to reside there and my trustees shall have power to expend 
monies on insuring maintaining and repairing the said property and 
furniture and shall pay the rates and all outgoings on the property 
whilst the same shall remain unsold and I request that my children shall 
out of the monies received from my estate ensure that my said Husband is 
properly cared for and provided for the remainder of his lifetime.

7  MY TRUSTEES may in extension of the power of appropriation on 
personal representatives by Section 41 of Estates Act 1925 at any time 
at their discretion appropriate any part of my residuary estate in its 
then actual condition or state of investment in or towards satisfaction 
of any share in my residuary estate without obtaining the consent of any 
person

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:40:05 +0000, Saxman
 wrote:

> My father has gone into a home under the advice of the NHS and is 
> awaiting a decision about his future.
>
> My father has a right to live in the house until his death and my mother 
> has made adequate provision for him.
>
> I would assume that if he elects to stay in a care home on the advice of 
> the NHS/Social Services, then he gives up the right to return home?

I do not agree that your step-father loses his lifetime right to residence
on account of an absence that may only be temporary, say in the event that
should he finds the care home to be unpleasant.  If he has the capacity to
make such a decision, perhaps the trustees will choose to make him an offer
of something else that is more useful to him and so buy out his right.

Tony

Anthony R. Gold wrote:

> I do not agree that your step-father loses his lifetime right to residence
> on account of an absence that may only be temporary, say in the event that
> should he finds the care home to be unpleasant.  If he has the capacity to
> make such a decision, perhaps the trustees will choose to make him an offer
> of something else that is more useful to him and so buy out his right.

Once he elects to stay in a care home, he then comes under the care of 
Social Services and cannot return home so I have been informed.  I do 
not have to draw up anything legal.

However, he does have the right to reject the care home that he is 
'temporarily' in now and choose another if he wishes.

Saxman  wrote in
news:BNadnVTzd6OZqmjXnZ2dnUVZ7qidnZ2d@bt.com: 

> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> 
>> I do not agree that your step-father loses his lifetime right to
>> residence on account of an absence that may only be temporary,
>> say in the event that should he finds the care home to be
>> unpleasant.  If he has the capacity to make such a decision,
>> perhaps the trustees will choose to make him an offer of
>> something else that is more useful to him and so buy out his
>> right. 
> 
> Once he elects to stay in a care home, he then comes under the
> care of Social Services and cannot return home so I have been
> informed.  I do not have to draw up anything legal.
> 

This is completely untrue!  What is true is that after 6 weeks the 
Social services will normally expect him to cancel any tenancy with 
the same local authority, and liquidate any assets (such as a house) 
that he needs to pay them an assessed fincancial contribution.  
There may be some legal basis for these two financial requirements.  
Unless the Court of Protection has appointed council officials as 
deputies *and* he has lost capacity to make decisions he remains as 
free as the rest of us to leave the home at any time.

This applies even though some of the parties involved may believe 
the old Poor Laws still to be in force!




> However, he does have the right to reject the care home that he is
> 'temporarily' in now and choose another if he wishes.



-- 
Percy Picacity
Path: news.alt.net
From: Percy Picacity <key@under.the.invalid>
Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated
Subject: Re: House Ownership?
X-Posted-Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 10:27:25 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:30:10 +0000
Organization: Not Usually
Message-ID: 
References:       
User-Agent: Xnews/2009.05.01
X-Ulm-Charter: http://www.usenet.org.uk/uk.legal.moderated.html
X-Ulm-Info-1: Submissions              uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-2: Technical complaints only      sysadmin (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Ulm-Info-3: Human moderators uk-legal-moderated-request@usenet.org.uk
X-Comment: The moderators express no opinion about this article.
X-Robomod: {R}UUM ©2003       Richard Ashton richard (at) moderation.org.uk
X-Robomod-Trace: 8176120091107103013auto
Approved: uk-legal-moderated moderators 

Saxman  wrote in
news:BNadnVTzd6OZqmjXnZ2dnUVZ7qidnZ2d@bt.com: 

> Anthony R. Gold wrote:
> 
>> I do not agree that your step-father loses his lifetime right to
>> residence on account of an absence that may only be temporary,
>> say in the event that should he finds the care home to be
>> unpleasant.  If he has the capacity to make such a decision,
>> perhaps the trustees will choose to make him an offer of
>> something else that is more useful to him and so buy out his
>> right. 
> 
> Once he elects to stay in a care home, he then comes under the
> care of Social Services and cannot return home so I have been
> informed.  I do not have to draw up anything legal.
> 

This is completely untrue!  What is true is that after 6 weeks the 
Social services will normally expect him to cancel any tenancy with 
the same local authority, and liquidate any assets (such as a house) 
that he needs to pay them an assessed fincancial contribution.  
There may be some legal basis for these two financial requirements.  
Unless the Court of Protection has appointed council officials as 
deputies *and* he has lost capacity to make decisions he remains as 
free as the rest of us to leave the home at any time.

This applies even though some of the parties involved may believe 
the old Poor Laws still to be in force!




> However, he does have the right to reject the care home that he is
> 'temporarily' in now and choose another if he wishes.



-- 
Percy Picacity

Percy Picacity wrote:

> This is completely untrue!  What is true is that after 6 weeks the 
> Social services will normally expect him to cancel any tenancy with 
> the same local authority, and liquidate any assets (such as a house) 
> that he needs to pay them an assessed financial contribution.  
> There may be some legal basis for these two financial requirements.  
> Unless the Court of Protection has appointed council officials as 
> deputies *and* he has lost capacity to make decisions he remains as 
> free as the rest of us to leave the home at any time.
> 
> This applies even though some of the parties involved may believe 
> the old Poor Laws still to be in force!

On that basis it looks like the beneficiaries will have to keep my 
step-father's home empty and maintained while he is alive?

I am merely a layman regarding the law, but it would be satisfying to 
know what my position is as a beneficiary, so that I do not do anything 
untoward in the future.

I had a meeting with a County Council Financial Officer several weeks 
ago and I posed the question about drawing up a legal document regarding 
his right to return home once he has elected to stay in a home.  I was 
told it wasn't necessary.  As stated before, the house is still with 
probate, now that my sister has refused to accept part ownership of the 
property.  Will it have to remain with probate until my step-father dies?

My step-father is capable of making his own decisions at the moment.

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:50:07 +0000, Saxman
 wrote:

> Percy Picacity wrote:
>
>> This is completely untrue!  What is true is that after 6 weeks the 
>> Social services will normally expect him to cancel any tenancy with 
>> the same local authority, and liquidate any assets (such as a house) 
>> that he needs to pay them an assessed financial contribution.  
>> There may be some legal basis for these two financial requirements.  
>> Unless the Court of Protection has appointed council officials as 
>> deputies *and* he has lost capacity to make decisions he remains as 
>> free as the rest of us to leave the home at any time.
>>
>> This applies even though some of the parties involved may believe 
>> the old Poor Laws still to be in force!
>
> On that basis it looks like the beneficiaries will have to keep my 
> step-father's home empty and maintained while he is alive?
>
> I am merely a layman regarding the law, but it would be satisfying to 
> know what my position is as a beneficiary, so that I do not do anything 
> untoward in the future.
>
> I had a meeting with a County Council Financial Officer several weeks 
> ago and I posed the question about drawing up a legal document regarding 
> his right to return home once he has elected to stay in a home.  I was 
> told it wasn't necessary.  As stated before, the house is still with 
> probate, now that my sister has refused to accept part ownership of the 
> property.  Will it have to remain with probate until my step-father dies?
>
> My step-father is capable of making his own decisions at the moment.

Regardless of your belief in his capability, I urge you to provide him with
competent independent legal and financial advice to assist him in deciding
on any proposed change that will benefit you and any other beneficiaries.

Tony

"Saxman"  wrote in message 
news:7IGdna5X8NNxsmzXnZ2dnUVZ8mSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> peterwn wrote:
>
>> The key thing here is he has never owned the house (as far as I can
>> see). What usually bothers social services agencies is where a person
>> approaching old age deliberately sheds assets to the family so as not
>> to be partly or totally disqualified from receiving benefits.
>
> One thing I forgot to add is that my sister has refused to sign the Land 
> Registry document transferring the property into the names of the three 
> beneficiaries.  She might of done this to prevent possible rental of the 
> property or hopefully get my brother and myself to buy her out which is 
> out of the question.
>
> The property will have to be disposed as part of the estate as a result.

You need to arrange for your father to get independent legal advice because
the situation is complicated and you cannot trust the County Council
Financial Officer to know the law or to give correct answers. One thing is
quite clear which is that your father does not lose the right of abode
simply because he lives elsewhere even if it may be very inconvenient for
the other beneficiaries. It might be able for him to come to an agreement to
give up that right for a sum of money but of course that might then end up
in the local authority's hands if it caused his assets to be over the
threshold at which he has to contribute to his care. Your sister's stubborn 
attitude
might well mean that the issue has to go to court and this could mean she
has to pay. You should try and talk some sense into her.

Peter Crosland

"Saxman"  wrote in message 
news:7IGdna5X8NNxsmzXnZ2dnUVZ8mSdnZ2d@bt.com...
> peterwn wrote:
>
>> The key thing here is he has never owned the house (as far as I can
>> see). What usually bothers social services agencies is where a person
>> approaching old age deliberately sheds assets to the family so as not
>> to be partly or totally disqualified from receiving benefits.
>
> One thing I forgot to add is that my sister has refused to sign the Land 
> Registry document transferring the property into the names of the three 
> beneficiaries.  She might of done this to prevent possible rental of the 
> property or hopefully get my brother and myself to buy her out which is 
> out of the question.
>
> The property will have to be disposed as part of the estate as a result.

I missed this point before. The executor's can't, AFAIK, dispose of the 
property because this would deprive your father of his right to live there 
as the will entitles him to. They need to take some legal advice before 
proceeding further as they would be liable for this.

Peter Crosland

Peter Crosland wrote:

> I missed this point before. The executor's can't, AFAIK, dispose of the 
> property because this would deprive your father of his right to live there 
> as the will entitles him to. They need to take some legal advice before 
> proceeding further as they would be liable for this.

I have made them aware of this.  It makes for a complicated issue, 
especially when my my late mother made it rather simple in her will. 
She did not envisage him going into a home.

The sensible things she did was to come to an agreement with her husband 
  and transfer the property in her name as early as 2001.  (Social 
Services cannot her accuse her of deprivation of funds, as it was done 
well before her death).

Allow the remaining part of her estate to be used for the maintenance of 
the property.  She cannot be accused of not making provision for her 
husband.

I have been informed that the property is safe within the family, 
provided she has made good provision for her husband.  I think she has 
done that.

"Saxman"  wrote in message 
news:-qadnSL4tvaTWWrXnZ2dnUVZ7oKdnZ2d@bt.com...
> Peter Crosland wrote:
>
>> I missed this point before. The executor's can't, AFAIK, dispose of the 
>> property because this would deprive your father of his right to live 
>> there as the will entitles him to. They need to take some legal advice 
>> before proceeding further as they would be liable for this.
>
> I have made them aware of this.  It makes for a complicated issue, 
> especially when my my late mother made it rather simple in her will. She 
> did not envisage him going into a home.
>
> The sensible things she did was to come to an agreement with her husband 
> and transfer the property in her name as early as 2001.  (Social Services 
> cannot her accuse her of deprivation of funds, as it was done well before 
> her death).
>
> Allow the remaining part of her estate to be used for the maintenance of 
> the property.  She cannot be accused of not making provision for her 
> husband.
>
> I have been informed that the property is safe within the family, provided 
> she has made good provision for her husband.  I think she has done that.

Whatever arrangement has been made it sounds as though it does not comply 
with the legal obligations of the executor(s). Unfortunately 
non-professional executor(s) often think they can do as they please rather 
than apply the law correctly. The executors are digging an even bigger hole 
for themselves because the are the trustees and may, or may not be allowed 
to spend other funds within the estate. By dealing with matters in a proper 
manner now they will prevent a lot of grief in the future. Her refusal to 
sign the LR documents could be construed as refusal to accept the bequest 
which, of course, she is entitled to do. Are the executors independent or 
are they the beneficiaries themselves? If you sister is an executor then she 
could, and probably should, be removed as executor for breach of her duty. 
This is a rather drastic step but it might be the only answer.

Peter Crosland