Husband and wife own a house together. W owns a bungalow in her own name that was inherited. No other assets to speak of. H has dementia and other health problems and receives significant amounts of home care funded by the local authority.
House is becoming too big but W is worried that by releasing capital in house funding would be lost so I wondered if H and W could sell house and H could buy half share of W bungalow? both properties about the same value so would again leave H with no other capital.
I have spoken with a former local authority assessor and he thinks it would be caught by deprivation rules although if they were to sell both properties and buy a different bungalow (meaning all remaining capital in wife’s name) he thinks that would be ok.
I feel like he is probably right but can’t quite get my head around why. Does anyone have any thoughts?
That is another option, the problem is the bungalow W has is the type and location that they want to move to and they are unlikely to find somewhere as suitable. She is resigned to the fact that she will either need to sell or let the bungalow but I am just wondering if there is anyway that they could move into it.
They have been advised by someone else (non-legal) that if W were to gift the bungalow to her daughter and then H and W were to purchase the bungalow from daughter that this would be ok (other than potential deprivation by W). That feels to me more like something the council would pick up on, any further thoughts?
ultimately the clients needs should come first, and if that is the right place to move to they should do so regardless-I see no reason why the wife can’t exchange a half share of the bungalow for a half share of the house. If they attach it, so be it, but from a human perspective it makes most sense.
Don’t like the other suggestion on a number of levels.
Agreed, that is essentially what I think we will do. Proceed how W wants and then review with the council. I just need client to be aware of the risk and that buying a new bungalow is the only way to guarantee continued funding. thank you for your input Simon.
Has anyone assessed the husband for NHS Continuing Healthcare funding? This should be done before anyone at the local authority starts talking about charges or assets or deliberate deprivation. Also, they should not be advised to pay anything until it has been properly decided whether the NHS has a legal duty to cover the cost of the husband’s care. Sadly many people are given incorrect information at the very start of needing care and end up incorrectly paying care fees based on their money/assets. Whether or not a person pays for care has nothing to do with their money; instead, it’s based on the degree of their care needs ONLY.