Our experienced Community Care Law solicitors answer frequently asked questions about Social Care funding and deprivation of assets.
The term ‘deprivation of assets’ is used by Local Authorities (LA) when they believe someone has made a gift or transfer of assets to a third party, usually a relative, to avoid or reduce their liability to pay for care.
The LA has a duty to help a person with their social care costs when their assessable assets drop to £23,250, at which stage the LA will undertake a financial assessment or means test.
If the LA decides that a person has intentionally ‘deprived’ themselves of assets, the financial assessment will treat the person as still owning the value of that asset. This is called ‘notional capital’ and the LA will treat the person as self-funding even though they do not have assets above £23,250.
Whether someone has deprived themselves of assets or not is a complex issue and may depend on the timing of the transfer, the reason for the transfer and whether the need for care was foreseeable before or at the time of the transfer.
Examples of deprivation of assets may include making a lump sum payment to another person, possibly as a gift, or buying expensive items which would be disregarded as personal possessions. Other examples include transferring the title deeds and ownership of a property to someone else, or placing assets in a trust that cannot be revoked.
There may be valid reasons for doing these things – whether they are considered to be deliberate deprivation of assets by the local authority will depend on a number of factors, including the timing and motivation of your actions.
Some actions, whilst they may reduce the value of assets that would be considered when calculating eligibility for care fees, are not classed as deprivation of assets. For example, paying off or reducing a debt that is owed, or purchasing goods and services.
The deliberate deprivation of assets is a criminal offence, although local authorities are unlikely in practice to take action through the criminal courts. They are much more likely to enter into discussions and attempt to recover the assets, or refuse to continue paying for the care. As a last resort, local authorities may apply for a county court judgement against someone accused of deliberate deprivation of assets. If you are found to have deliberately deprived your estate of assets it is important to consult an expert Community Care law solicitor to discuss the options available to you.
There is no time limit for how far back a council can assert assess that there has been an alleged deprivation of assets when they someone’s eligibility for care fees. The key test is whether someone had a need or expectation of care at the time that the assets were gifted, transferred or otherwise disposed of.
There is no such thing as a “seven year rule” regarding deprivation of assets in a social care context. The misconception comes from the law around inheritance tax, which does not apply to the paying for care rules. In the case of inheritance tax, a person who receives a gift such as property or a sum of money will have to pay inheritance tax if the person who gifted it dies within seven years of the gift. This does not apply to the deprivation of assets rules, which instead take into account the person’s current needs and / or their expectation of a need to pay for their future care health at the time of the gift and their intention when giving it away.
When a local authority assesses someone’s assets when calculating eligibility for care costs, they include income, savings, investments and property. However, the value of a home is not taken into account if someone is receiving care at home (as opposed to permanently moving into a care home). If the home is jointly owned by someone else who is still living in the property, the home will not be included in the means test. Similarly, if the home is still occupied by certain other people, it many not be included. It can be important to consult an expert Social Care solicitor when considering your eligibility for local authority funded care fees to make sure that you do not miss out on relevant social care property disregards.
Even though your aunt has enough money to pay for her care fees, it won’t be long before her savings fall below the ‘upper capital limit’ of £23,250. As her Attorney, you will then need to ask for a Social Services financial assessment to help pay for her care fees.
Because you have gifted money that your aunt would otherwise have had available to pay for her care, Social Services may consider this a ‘deprivation.’ This may mean that your aunt has to keep paying for her care from the value of the money that was given to your siblings, even though she no longer has the money. This is known as ‘notional capital’.
Rules about paying for care differ from Inheritance Tax Planning rules. There is no such thing as a deprivation of assets ‘seven year rule’. You should not make any further gifts of £3,000 to your siblings until you have taken advice from our specialist Community Care Team.
The Council believe that your father’s decision to sell his house and invest the proceeds in a property that is not in his name was an ‘intentional deprivation of assets’.
However, as your father is living in the property and as you are providing his care when you are not at work, this deprivation decision seems unfair, as if he was still living in his own house, the value of his home would be ignored. Also, your father retains an interest in the property even though it is not in his name.
Your father has a right to challenge the Council’s decision through their complaint process. He will need to give a detailed explanation of the circumstances in which he decided not to his name on the legal title.
There are some complicated trust law arguments that you could use, so you should seek specialist advice to show the Council that this is not a deprivation of assets.
The rules governing gifting and local authority financial assessments are not the same as the Inheritance Tax rules.
Unfortunately, there is no deprivation of assets “7-year rule” when it comes to paying for care and the Council can go back as far as they wish when investigating deprivation of assets.
However, from what you have said, the Council may have failed to apply the correct legal test about deliberate deprivation. This test should look at your health and care needs at the time and what your intentions were.
If one or both parents ask the Council for help paying their care fees in the future, a Social Services’ financial assessment will look at their assets. Despite the explanation that they are doing this for tax purposes, the Council may be suspicious and believe that your parents’ real motivation is to avoid paying care fees in the future.
If your parents keep their home in their own names and one of them did need to go into a care home, provided the other one was still living at home, the value of their property would be disregarded in full under Social Services’ financial assessment rules about mandatory property disregards.
However, if the title is transferred to you, then at best, there will be a costly and long dispute with Social Services who are likely to make a deprivation allegation.
Paying for care fees can be complex and difficult to navigate, so we recommend seeking advice to help your parents make an informed decision, including understanding the risks.
It is possible that Social Services will decide that your aunt has deprived herself of assets because some Local Authority Financial Assessment teams do so whenever a large amount of money has been spent or given away.
However, in your aunt’s case, it would be hard for the Local Authority to show that the legal test for deprivation is met. Your aunt’s decision to invest everything she owned was unwise, but her motivation was not to avoid paying for her future care and support needs.
Social Services might say this is deprivation because your sister had a need for care and support when the payments to her sons began. They could say you should have kept her money to pay for her care, and that you are trying to protect her assets from care home fees.
However, they will have to show that her motivation was to avoid care costs. As your sister’s Deputy, your motivation was to support her sons through a difficult period to ensure they could continue their education after their parents’ accident. The Court of Protection permission may be helpful evidence if the Council makes a deprivation decision.
Social Services do not always take a common-sense approach when looking at gifting. It is important to obtain specialist advice to protect your position as Deputy.
No, this is incorrect. Before the Care Act 2014 came into effect, there was a six month limit on Social Services’ ability to take action against the recipient of a gift. The Care Act abolished this limitation and the fact that the gift was over six months ago does not mean that it is not classed as deprivation of assets. As your mother had care needs at the time of the gift, then it is very likely that Social Services will say it was a deliberate deprivation of assets and refuse to help with her care fees.
If you or your family require specialist advice from our deprivation of assets solicitors, please contact us on 01273 609911, or email info@ms-solicitors.co.uk to find out how our Community Care Law Team can help.
Martin Searle Solicitors, 9 Marlborough Place, Brighton, BN1 1UB
T: 01273 609 991 info@ms-solicitors.co.uk
Martin Searle Solicitors is the trading name of ms solicitors ltd, which is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and is registered in England under company number 05067303.
© 2024