Previous Owner and money for care needs

Currently, there are 0 users and 1 guest visiting this topic.
Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #38075
    anneb
    Participant

    Customer lives in his own property, requires care during the day as a double amputee to get around but social services refuse to provide any funding (not enquiried why but can only assume it’s something to do with him owning his own property). Gentleman puts his property on the market and tries to find social housing but due to his needs, can’t find anything suitable. Customer looks at equity release company but offered an amount considered to be alot less than the property value.

    Customer has a friend (who is also his carer) who offers to purchase the property (June 2010) and let him live there whilst charging him rent. Friend (carer/landlord) gives him an amount of money now to provide for his care and living expenses and, as the property is still on the market, agrees to pay him a balance once the property is sold.

    Basically our customer sold the property to pay for his care needs (although the daily carer is also the landlord/friend). The property was not mortgaged at the time so he was not at threat of losing it. Also, the house is still on the market and customer want to move out therefore does not intend to continue to live in it.

    As a previous owner I am trying to decide if he satisifies that criteria of having to relinquish ownership to continue living there (hindered by the fact that he is not going to continue living there once the property is sold – however this may be a long search for accommodation due to his needs).

    Any opinions would be appreciated.

    Thanks!

    #107205
    Kevin D
    Participant

    It’s a bit unclear whether the clmt is, as a fact, still the owner. If he is, no HB is payable in any case, irrespective of whether or not money has already changed hands.

    On the basis the sale has actually occurred, I think this is a horrible situation to have to make a decision on. Not only is the “previous owner” aspect at issue, but the commerciality of the arrangement is also surely questionable.

    The crux for the “previous owner” is this: could the clmt have continued to occupy the dwelling without relinquishing ownership? In my view, more information is needed in relation to the apparent refusal of Social Services to assist – with particular regard to the care that is/was needed and is/was being provided. Despite the cuts in funding, SS still have legal obligations and cannot arbitrarily refuse funding. If such funding has been properly refused, what other options are available to the clmt? Bear in mind, the onus is on the clmt to positively demonstrate that he has to relinquish ownership [b]for the purpose of continuing occupation[/b].

    So to commerciality. Would the rent charge be a true commercial arrangement; or, would it be a personal arrangement between friends?

    In my view, much more info will be needed before a decision can be made on either issue.

    #107206
    anneb
    Participant

    I realise the commerciality is an issue – I had thought about that one.
    Thanks for your comments you’ve given a lot for me to think about – espiecally the s/service issue – i did wonder about that one!

    #107207
    anneb
    Participant

    I realise the commerciality is an issue – I had thought about that one.
    Thanks for your comments you’ve given a lot for me to think about – espiecally the s/service issue – i did wonder about that one!

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.