Daughter, 75, will have to sell family home to pay care fees for her 100-year-old mother
A WOMAN in her 70s may be forced to sell her childhood home to fund her elderly mother’s care after losing a landmark court case that could have implications for families across Britain.
Theatre director Glen Walford has been told by judges that the house, where she has recently invested £40,000 in renovations, was not her home at the time when her mother went into care because she rents a flat in London.
Miss Walford, 75, has spent two years fighting Worcestershire County Council over whether the £205,000 house should be used to recover the cost of her mother’s care.
Now the council has won the right to force Miss Walford to use the equity in the house, where she intended to retire, for care home fees, which can be up to £600 a week.
Solicitors warned that the case could pave the way for relatives across the country to be liable for their parents’ care.
Charlotte Kelly, an associate at Worcestershire legal firm Kerwoods, said: ‘This was a
‘I have no energy or money left to fight’
very significant judgement and one which will affect many in similar situations.’
When her mother Mary Walford, now aged 100, was admitted into care in 2006, the council agreed that the house in Stourporton-Severn should not be taken into account during means testing.
But in 2013 they reversed their decision and said that Miss Walford would need to begin contributing towards bills. Frustrated by the U- turn, Miss Walford became embroiled in a legal battle with the council which was taken to the High Court in January 2014.
There, a judge ruled that her home should not be taken into account when they carried out means testing on her mother’s finances.
In his ruling, Justice Supperstone concluded: ‘A “home” is a place to which a person has a degree of attachment both physical and emotional.’
But the council took the case to the Court of Appeal, arguing that although the property may be her home, it was not at the time her mother was taken into care.
Yesterday Miss Walford said: ‘I am now in a position where I will almost certainly have to sell my home to pay for my mother’s care bills which will leave me homeless. I have no energy or money left to fight them.’
Sunnydene has been in the family for decades and was built by her grandmother’s aunt in the mid-1800s. Miss Walford’s car is parked in the drive, her belongings fill the bedrooms and she has an office where she carries out her work.
Yet she is often posted across the globe and, when working on national productions, needs to be based in London. As a result Miss Walford rents a bedsit owned by a friend in the centre of the capital.
Miss Walford, who has never married and has no children, said: ‘Sunnydene is my home. I have lived there since I was 13.
‘I pay council tax, the electricity bills and have spent £42,000 renovating it. It was always my intention to retire in the house.
‘It is quite simply my home and it is going to be sold from underneath me. God knows how many other people will face the same heartache following this ruling.’
In the Court of Appeal hearing on December 9 last year, her barrister Fraser Campbell argued that the only reason his client did not permanently live at Sunnydene was because her work ties her to London. By saying that the house would have been Miss Walford’s residence had she not worked in London, the council was discouraging people over the age of 60 from working, Mr Campbell argued.
Despite the submissions, two out of three judges ruled in the council’s favour. Lord Justice McCombe, who rejected the council’s appeal, said he saw ‘no reason’ to assess whether the property was Miss Walford’s home based on a ‘historic’ date.
Yesterday a Worcestershire Council spokesman said: ‘This was an important legal challenge and we are pleased that the Court of Appeal ruled in our favour.
‘ There are ever increasing demands being made on the public purse and it is important that decisions about how public money is used to support individuals are fair and consistent.’