Award-winning council says police not investigating after care-home gran’s house price slashed by £50,000
A SPECIAL INVESTIGATION BY LEIGH G BANKS and EHI EKHATOR, THE STANDARD GAZETTE
A council which won an international housing award sold a 92-year-old grandmother’s home for £50,000 under its market value and told her family they’d done it to save her £7 a week, it is claimed.
Newcastle City Council had apparantly been reported to police over claims about the sale of house in Redhouse Farm, Gosforth, Newcastle upon Tyne. The council says that the police are not following up the claims.
A spokesman said: “While you state in the story that the council was reported to the police, the police have confirmed to us that they are not investigating the council.”
However, the council is still under attack by members of the old lady’s family after selling the house for £50,000 less than its market value to save £300.
Mrs Joan Bamford, a former magistrate, had lived in the house with her husband, Larry Bamford for decades before he died, leaving her, according to her family, with a small fortune.
Craig Bulman, the woman’s nephew, said: “My aunt wasn’t broke, she had a few hundred thousand in the bank left to her by Larry. He had his own drilling business and when he died in 2000 Joan was well-provided for, she would never have to worry about money again. The council stole her money!
“The council sold her house at a knock-down price and all they can come up with is to say they sold it in her best interests at a £50,000 loss and saved £7 a week.”
Today the house has a Mercedes and 4×4 in the drive after the garage where Larry had kept his Ford Sierra estate was knocked down by the new owners to provide a bigger garden.
Craig, an ex-army vet and Red Devils Freefall Team went to the war on Newcastle council in 2013 in an attempt to protect the assets his aunt and uncle had built up over 59 years ago.
In a series of emails and letters to the local authority, Craig has accused the council of abuse of power, being in breach of Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 and breaching code of conduct.
Newcastle City council is particularly proud of its track record in protecting people’s homes.
Its Active Inclusion Newcastle partnership is one of only two projects in the world to win a prestigious gold at last year’s World Habitat Awards. Newcastle says it has kept 24,000 families together through their scheme.
Former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Leilani Farha, who was one of the judges, said: “I congratulate the incredible coalition, led by the city council, that has been created in Newcastle to ensure the success of the homelessness prevention programme.
So, why in fact did they sell Joan’s home so cheaply when she clearly had the money to maintain it?
The problem started in 2012, shortly after Mrs Bamford was diagnosed with dementia.
Between 2012 and 2018, Mrs Bamford had stayed in three Care Homes – Byker Hall Care Home, Manor House Care Home in Gosforth, Lea Green Court Care Home in 2017 and in early 2018, she was moved to Kenton Manor Care Home where she paid £3,000 monthly until she went into the Mental health ward.
The family had agreed to the sale of the house after the realisation that it would cost £90,000 yearly as Mrs Bamford needed extra care.
After the former Magistrate was covered by section 117 of the Mental Health Act in 2018, 1983, which placed Mrs Bamford as the state’s responsibility, the family called off the sale of the house.
Craig says that the authority disregarded his aunt’s last wish to have the house remain in the family as the council claimed it was “in the best interest of Mrs Bamford”.
Newcastle Council applied to act as financial deputy for Mrs Bamford after her sister did not take the role because of personal circumstances.
In December 2013, the council informed Mr Bulman of the need to sell Mrs Bamford’s house, claiming it was for her best interest despite acknowledging she didn’t need the money.
The Council had noted in a correspondence to Mr Bulman that “Whilst the sale of the property after December 2017 was not to ensure that Mrs Bamford had available funds to meet her social care needs, the deputy remained under a duty to consider whether it was in Mrs Bamford’s best interests to retain the property or to sell it.”
The council claimed the cost associated with the property could have been a financial burden to Joan. A council spokesman also said that the price was based on the advice of three estate agents.
The spokesperson also said: “
A council spokesperson said: “When Mrs Bamford was placed in a care home, financial deputyship for her property and finances passed to the local authority after her family did not take up this role. This required the council to act in her best interests after she lacked capacity.
“In November 2019 after the property had been empty for seven years and was falling into disrepair the council took the decision – after independent valuations – to lower the asking price so it could be sold. This was taken in the best interests of Mrs Bamford who was incurring significant management and repair costs.
“The Office of the Public Guardian were made aware of the intention to sell the property and raised no concerns in this matter.
“We have been in lengthy correspondence with a member of Mrs Bamford’s family over a number of years about our decisions and have advised them of their rights if they wish to take the matter further.”
#council #oldfolk #NewcastleCityCouncil #magistrate #housesale #pensioners #care #carehomes
4 Replies to “Award-winning council says police not investigating after care-home gran’s house price slashed by £50,000”
A very frightening scenario. Especially for people who are in their twilight years. Keep us up with any developments. This needs highlighting and some tightening of the laws urgently required.
There was absolutely no reason my aunt’s property needed to be sold as she was no longer paying £3,000 per month for her care as the state covered her care under section 117 (Aftercare) Mental Health Act 1983. The property was not falling into disrepair as the downstairs was all newly refurbished the only thing that did need updating was the bathroom and toilet and bedrooms redecorating other than that the property was in good condition.
My aunt did not need to be in the care home, in the beginning, she was wrongfully detained.
My aunt wanted the property to remain in the family the Council totally ignored my aunts wishes, they clearly ignored the Best Interest Check List which I have provided below.
If the Police refuse to investigate than I shall not pay Council Tax for the service.
The Police refusing to investigate a criminal matter is disgusting.
The comments from the Council answers nothing it is just waffle they know they have been caught out. They are bottom-feeding thieves. The corruption in the UK by public authorities is beyond disgusting. The French got it right in 1789
Making decisions in the person’s best interests
When a decision is made on behalf of a person who lacks the ability to make it themselves, it must always be made in the person’s best interests. This ensures that:
their rights are respected, and the decision is the best one for them.
It should never be made in the best interests of the person making the decision. For example, it should never be made to make things easier for the carer or professionals involved.
Consultation rights and best interest decisions
The best interests checklist shows the rights that the person and those close to them have in decision-making:
When appropriate, the person has a right to be involved in decisions made about them. This is crucial as just because someone cannot make the decision themselves, this does not mean that they don’t still have preferences and feelings about what they would like.
Family, friends, and carers also have a right to be consulted and involved in the decision, where appropriate. This is vital as they often know the person best and can share what they feel is in the person’s best interests, as well as what the person’s preferences and views are.
Sometimes, especially when making more complex decisions such as where someone will live, there may be a ‘best interests meeting’. This isn’t always necessary, but when it is it can be a very good way of considering all the different factors involved in the decision, including the views of the person and their family. Sometimes family or representatives of the person will be invited, but at other times they won’t. Where they aren’t, their views should still be considered in the meeting. How this is done is dependent on the situation – for example, views could be submitted in writing, or via someone else such as an IMCA. Alternatively, the person or their carer could meet with a professional before the meeting is held to share their views.
Best interests checklist
Decisions cannot simply be based on the person’s age, dementia or other condition, or their behaviour.
All the relevant circumstances should be taken into account when making a decision. For example, looking at what the person would have considered if they were able to make the decision themselves.
The person with dementia should be encouraged and enabled to take part in the decision and share their views, where possible.
It should be considered whether the person will regain capacity later, and if the decision can be put off until then. This is crucial as a person with dementia may have good and bad days and they may be able to make the decision on another day.
The person’s past, present and future wishes and feelings should be taken into account.
The views of other people, such as carers, friends, family and any attorney or deputy, should be taken into account.
If the decision involves life-sustaining treatment, there are other special considerations to take into account. For example, checking whether there is an advance decision (see ‘Advance decisions’ below), considering all the treatment options available and not being motivated by a desire to end a person’s life. If there is any doubt over the person’s best interests, the case should be referred to the Court of Protection for it to decide.
They should have spent a few thousand to do the so called repairs so the property could have been sold for full market value, why did they not do this? The excuses of the Council are lame. As mentioned in my previous comment the downstairs had been totally renovated after a flash flood in 2006 downstairs was almost brand new and very little use as my aunt never spent much time at home and ate out every day, so the kitchen was almost untouched. Upstairs needed a new bathroom and redecoration that was it. 0. They tried to sell the house when my aunt had been in the care home a very short time her bed was still warm. There was no rational reason to sell the property.
Here is the content of the email I received from Chi Onwurah MP Office
Ref: AMc/ET Joan Bamford Kenton Manor Care Home
BONE, Anthony
7 January 2020 at 10:48
To: Craig , “[email protected]” ,”WILLIAMS, Marion” , “[email protected]”
Dear Bulman
Thank you for you for copying me into your email on this important issue.
MPs and their staff have no powers to instruct anyone or any organisation.
MPs as elected representatives and their staff however do raise objections, issues and ask questions on behalf of residents, and family/those representing constituents.
We are concerned that your aunt’s property should not be sold off below a good market price, not least as deposits with banks and savings are losing their purchasing value owing
to the very low current interest rates.
Given this situation, we do believe it is not in your aunt’s interest for the property to be sold at present.
Yours sincerely
Tony Bone
Senior Caseworker
Office of Chi Onwurah
Labour MP for Newcastle Central
Suite 24, 7-15 Pink Lane
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 5DW
As you will see the Council ignored the requests of a Member of Parliament, it is clear that Newcastle City Council has a rogue department that thinks that they are unaccountable and untouchable and can ignore elected representatives/Lawmakers