Care fees ruling on family homes

Last week saw an important High Court ruling on the definition of the family home as it applies to the funding of care.

Worcestershire County Council lost their case in the High Court after the 67 year old daughter of Mary Walford argued her mother’s property should be ‘disregarded’ by the local authority.

Mary Walford went into a care home in 2006, after a fall.

Her local authority, Worcestershire County Council, assessed her assets and included her property as an ‘eligible asset’, all in line with standard practice.

However, Ms Walford’s daughter argued that it was her home and should therefore be disregarded from the means testing. This was despite the fact that she lived elsewhere.

In his ruling, Mr Justice Supperstone delivered the following summary:

“The Regulations provide that property owned by residents should be disregarded where it is occupied in whole or in part as their home by a relative of the resident who is aged 60 or over.

“The claimant was 67 years of age when her mother entered the care home. She contends that the house should be disregarded because she occupies it as her home.”

The judge went on to define a home as “a place to which a person has a degree of attachment both physical and emotional.”

Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the implications of this ruling for care funding by local authorities, Worcestershire County Council is seeking permission to appeal.

It is worth noting that the circumstances in this particular case would only be relevant where the relatives of those going into care are at least 60 years old.

This case involved a scenario where the daughter never owned another property and always maintained a room in her mother’s home.

It could well be that many other adult children of those entering care are in similar circumstances.

This case is at least a timely reminder that care funding and long-term care in general is rarely simple, and it is essential to seek independent financial advice to consider all of the issues.