Charges for Charges: Home Sales Under the Care Act 2014

B. Sloan
{"title":"Charges for Charges: Home Sales Under the Care Act 2014","authors":"B. Sloan","doi":"10.5040/9781782257578.ch-009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Unlike healthcare, broadly provided free at the point of delivery in England, social care is subject to a means test that can include the care recipient’s home. One principle embodied in the Care Act 2014 is nevertheless the frequent undesirability of a recipient being forced to sell her own home during her lifetime to fund her care. It therefore seeks to increase the availability of Deferred Payment Agreements (‘DPAs’), enabling a local authority to make a secured loan to the care recipient. Even if this system is beneficial to such recipients themselves, it can have profound implications for people who wish to remain in the home of a now-deceased recipient. This is particularly true given that the secured loan facilitated by a DPA is due for repayment just 90 days after a recipient’s death, and that former co-residents might be vulnerable former providers of informal care. This paper aims to evaluate the relationship between former co-residents and home sales forced by local authorities, comparing a former co-resident’s position with that of others whose homes are the subject of attempted forced sale by creditors in other contexts, by examining law, guidance and codes of practice. The fundamental question is whether the system of DPAs governed by the Care Act adequately balances the perceived societal interest in ensuring that those with means contribute towards their care costs and the individual interests of former co-residents in remaining in their own homes after the death of a social care recipient.","PeriodicalId":82443,"journal":{"name":"Real property, probate, and trust journal","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Real property, probate, and trust journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781782257578.ch-009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Unlike healthcare, broadly provided free at the point of delivery in England, social care is subject to a means test that can include the care recipient’s home. One principle embodied in the Care Act 2014 is nevertheless the frequent undesirability of a recipient being forced to sell her own home during her lifetime to fund her care. It therefore seeks to increase the availability of Deferred Payment Agreements (‘DPAs’), enabling a local authority to make a secured loan to the care recipient. Even if this system is beneficial to such recipients themselves, it can have profound implications for people who wish to remain in the home of a now-deceased recipient. This is particularly true given that the secured loan facilitated by a DPA is due for repayment just 90 days after a recipient’s death, and that former co-residents might be vulnerable former providers of informal care. This paper aims to evaluate the relationship between former co-residents and home sales forced by local authorities, comparing a former co-resident’s position with that of others whose homes are the subject of attempted forced sale by creditors in other contexts, by examining law, guidance and codes of practice. The fundamental question is whether the system of DPAs governed by the Care Act adequately balances the perceived societal interest in ensuring that those with means contribute towards their care costs and the individual interests of former co-residents in remaining in their own homes after the death of a social care recipient.
收费:根据《2014年医疗法案》的房屋销售
与英格兰在提供服务时普遍免费提供的医疗保健不同,社会护理需要接受经济状况调查,其中可能包括接受护理者的家。然而,《2014年关爱法案》(Care Act 2014)体现的一个原则是,接受者往往不希望在她有生之年被迫卖掉自己的房子来资助她的护理。因此,它力求增加延期付款协议(dpa)的可用性,使地方当局能够向护理接受者提供有担保的贷款。即使这一制度对这些受赠人本身有利,它也可能对那些希望留在已故受赠人家中的人产生深远的影响。这一点尤其正确,因为由残疾人扶助计划促成的担保贷款在受助人死亡后仅90天就应偿还,而且以前的共同居民可能是脆弱的以前的非正规护理提供者。本文旨在评估前共同居民与地方当局强制出售房屋之间的关系,通过审查法律、指导和行为准则,将前共同居民的立场与其他情况下债权人试图强迫出售房屋的其他人的立场进行比较。最根本的问题是,《护理法》所规定的残疾人福利制度是否充分平衡了两方面的利益:一是确保那些有能力的人支付他们的护理费用,二是前共同居民在社会护理接受者去世后留在自己家中的个人利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信