Daughter wins £127k claim for caring for mum at home

[SerendipityJane]

Interesting ...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr93zp78g580o

How did she get the money, the executors should have informed the bank of her death and her account would have been frozen. once the bank received notice and a death certificate did they ask for the money back? Offering £50 a week is an insult, the siblings are just pissed off if from their inheritance. This is why you must make a will and proper financial arrangements, she could have been paid monthly like a carer.

If the bank weren’t notified, then it’s fraud.

If she had PofA she could’ve taken smaller amounts of money before…. Perhaps her family would’ve objected, I don’t know.

But taking it after the death is bizarre. And more importantly…. Fraud.

PP it’s a good point that the bank would’ve had the death certificate and if they bothered to look at date on there they would have flagged up anything suspicious. Actually 100,000 being paid to a personal account at any time would trigger a bank check.

This is going to be a case where the media are not reporting anything correctly

Am not surprising it is being appealed.
The lady had dementia.

I wonder if she was scared to take payment weekly or monthly while her Mum was alive incase she hit the point where she couldn't physicallt care for her mum and the money was needed for a care home, or she was accused of deprivation of assets.

But the mum had sent text messages telling the siblings she was to be paid.

There is a bit more detail here:

www.brmlaw.co.uk/news/case-law-development-rogers-v-wills-2026/

She was found not guilty of fraud. It was an unwise thing to do though.

Rogers v Wills https://share.google/QX8Ki7XWlGivGrRtk

Morally, I think she is right to receive a larger share for all the work she has done.

However- the brother as executor has legal responsibilities. He can't just decide that he thinks his sister has done a good thing and hand out money. If there was inheritance tax owed on the estate HMRC would be very unhappy with this and the executor could be jailed. I'd imagine in this case the house was sold before the mother moved in as HMRC aren't reported as having got involved.

It might sound harsh saying that the will should be the only thing that matters, but the problem is that when you complicate these things, the main winners are the solicitors. This opens the floodgates not only to these claims, but also arguments about the level of care provided, whether the elderly person would have been better off in a home, whether the carer only filled that role because they'd never flown the nest etc. Plenty of people with modest inheritances already get involved in these kid of disputes, only to see most of the money disappear to solicitors- I've seen it happen to friends and wider family.

The selfish person here is the Mother. Too many people have lists of wishes about who should get what money and who should care for them, but don't put them down on paper, causing all kinds of issues once they die. And it is pure selfishness- the arrangements needn't be time consuming or complicated to complete, and will cost less than a court case afterwards, a lot less.

Agree, something doesn’t seem quite right in this.

I hope I’m unselfish enough in my older years to not do this to my children. Especially with dementia. The mother failed all her children here to some degree.
Put me in a home and live your lives.

This! They probably popped round once in a blue moon and sat with their mom for an hour. Then went back to their lives, while patting themselves on the back for visiting.
There probably would be no money or very little left in the pot, if she had gone into a care home. So they should be greatful that there was money left in her estate at all.
They were happy for their sister to do the lion's share of the work, but expected a "fair" split of inheritance. Why!?! Just being greedy c u next Tuesday's. Glad the judge ruled in her favor.

But why should you not be paid for your caring work, especially if that is what your parent wants or would have wanted but for the dementia? After al, presumably if you weren't caring for him, you would presumably be working and earning a wage. Plus, in this case, there would have been quite a lot of expense in the shape of food, heating, washing, buying clothes etc.

Maybe they had a joint bank account, mother and daughter, which passed automatically to the survivor (Bern) on the death of the mother. No probate required for that. Just surmising.

She would not have been prosecuted for fraud if it was a joint account.

Thanks to the posters who provide provided extra information. They’re still not a lot of information there so if the case notes are published, I might have a look at those. Just out of curiosity, it doesn’t affect me …but this would be a massive potential change in precedent.

Agree- very very odd that the DM didnt give her the money whilst she was alive
I had a relative move in to " care" for my relative and mysteriously 43K got "spent" on the relative...
Elder abuse via financial fraud is rife in the UK

Very few, less than 15% of people end up in a care home
If one person can care for you then its unlikely your care needs would be complex enough to need a CH

In my case, I work full time and carry out my caring responsibilities before and after work, at lunchtimes and at weekends. Overall, it probably equates to another full time job, but personally, I wouldn't want to be paid for it because it is not a transactional arrangement. If I had to give up my day job in order to do what was required, then I accept that I might feel differently.

Regardless, my point still stands. I haven't said anywhere that carers shouldn't be paid for the caring work that they do. I think it's perfectly reasonable in some circumstances, and of course any expenses should also be reimbursed.

But the point I was making was simply that any such arrangements - whether relating to payment, expenses or both - should be clearly agreed, appropriately documented in writing and fully transparent to all concerned. That doesn't seem to have been the case in this scenario, and I find that wrong.

It would be incredibly easy for me to financially abuse my elderly father or another elderly relative if I was that way inclined, because of the access that I have to their accounts etc. In light of this, I feel it is incumbent on me to ensure that everything I do is carefully documented and fully transparent so that my sibling and any other relatives can see exactly what I've done and why. I cannot imagine just helping myself to £100k even if my dad had explicitly told me to...I would insist on that being properly documented and witnessed.

She needed 24hr care the DD and SIL couldn't leave her, their lives were on hold for 2 years, because she wanted the DD to look after her.

Depends on why the account was opened. If it was for convenience, i.e. paying bills and such then yes, the proceeds should have gone into the estate, but if it was for the benefit of Bern, then that would have been ok.

But you are probably right, it may have been a joint account, but not necessarily for the benefit of Bern! Therefore she may have had access to it but was not entitled to it.

I still think she deserved every penny, and the courts agreed. About time carers were given recognition like this.

I agree.

It would have been much better for there to have been a written agreement drawn up when the mother moved in with the daughter - specifying their mutual expectations of care needed and provided, and how that would be financially recompensed. This could have been reviewed annually or whenever the mother’s health deteriorated meaning more care was required.

Been should have been paid every month - which wouldn’t have been deprivation of assets as she would have been providing a service per a written agreement - instead of taking a large sum of money after her mother had died and was no longer there to confirm her understanding of how the finances were arranged.

It's often the same people who are very angry at the thought of inheritance tax etc going up because "it's just not fair on my parents who worked so hard for the joy of passing their money on" that also don't think the sibling who "helped out" the parent should get more because they made a choice etc etc.

It’s not the brother’s money either way, so generosity doesn’t come into it.

If there was a valid agreement to pay more then it is his duty to pay it from the estate and if there wasn’t then it’s his duty not to.

If you gave me authority over your bank account to pay your valid debts, would you be impressed if I told you I was feeling extra generous so had decided to pay everyone double? Or that I’d decided
everyone only deserved half? It would be malpractice from me either way.

Yes, this absolutely. The full judgements are available on Bailii and worth a read rather than speculating, there's a huge amount in there. But what it boils down to isn't that any carer is suddenly entitled to claim 6 figure sums for looking after a relative. There was clear, written evidence that the mother in this case definitely wanted to reimburse the daughter for her care, and all the siblings knew and agreed but what caused all the grief was that (a) the amount was never agreed and (b) nothing was paid out during the mother's lifetime and there was no clear explanation why not, e.g. that the daughter was to get a bigger inheritance or similar (c) the daughter then just decided to take a self-determined amount direct out of her mother's bank account after she'd died without consulting her siblings/the executors. She wasn't found guilty of fraud for that and she was eventually found to have been entitled to that money but that doesn't make it either legally/morally right or sensible to have done that. And most of the money will have been swallowed up in legal fees as a result plus the seemingly unrepairable family feud that's now happened. No same person would read this story and think that acting as the daughter has, even if she has 'won' in the end is a good idea.

My advice for what it's worth if you're considering providing care to an elderly relative or having them move in with you, is have those awkward family discussions about money upfront and wishes at the outset. In this case there seemed to be that all too common delicacy of feeling that made people reluctant to actually put a proper number and agreement onto things and there was loads of deferring things to a later point of vague agreements to be 'fair' and/or do right by one another that inevitably end in tears when it transpired people's ideas of what is fair and right vary enormously when it comes down to it. It's an old old story but it never fails to cause angst. And I would never rely on compensation in a will either, wills can be changed or assets swallowed up by care costs or tax or complex legal disputes. Or if you decide you really just don't feel able to demand money from family, keep your eyes open that you may never see any compensation for what you've done, financially or in thanks/gratitude. Hard lesson but one many of us have learnt sadly...

Extremely well put

She was very unwise to just take the money and the executor had a legal duty to flag this
Surprised the bank allowed it tbh

very interesting to read the actual judgement, and yes, the story is far more complicated than the headline.

I think Bern was right. And the brother seems a very unreliable witness.