Community and residential care

The elderly client's main preoccupation is likely to be whether or not they will have the finances in old age to keep them, whether in their own home or in a care home. For the wealthy client that may not be particularly troublesome but for the majority of older clients their concern centres on what care they can get or afford to get.

Note that this topic addresses only English law. Following devolution there are now significant differences between the English, Scottish and Welsh rules on many aspects of care provision and funding.

Guide to Care Act 2014 repeals

The Care Act 2014 (CA 2014) was probably the most important piece of legislation in the field of social care since the National Assistance Act 1948. It has wiped away a large number of pieces of legislation, both primary and secondary. Part 1 of the Act is in force but Part 2 is only partly in force.

For more information, see Practice Note: Guide to Care Act 2014 repeals.

Benefits and means testing

All clients are aware that their assets can be taken

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

CGT and trusts—another round of round the world schemes (Murphy v HMRC)

Private Client analysis: Murphy v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1503 (TC), like the Court of Appeal decisions in HMRC v Smallwood and Haworth v HMRC before it, concerns capital tax planning for offshore trusts commonly known as ‘round the world’ schemes. The scheme attempted to rely on the terms of double taxation agreements as a defence to a charge to capital gains tax on disposals of trust assets. Murphy differed from previous cases because the double taxation agreement in question was with New Zealand and was differently worded from the treaty with Mauritius considered in Smallwood. Ultimately, however, the FTT concluded that did not make a difference. The FTT did, however, reject HMRC’s restrictive interpretation of what was required for a claim to relief under the treaty. It also took a strict view of how HMRC were required to meet their burden of proof in relation to discovery assessments, finding in relation to one assessment that the requirements of section 29(5) of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA 1970) were not made out on the evidence.

Private Client weekly highlights—15 January 2026

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) the Bona Vacantia Division’s reinstatement of the unclaimed estates list; (2) analysis of Dahlman v Oxley & Palmers Solicitors and its implications for pre-action disclosure in probate claims and orders for costs; (3) the Department for Business and Trade’s publication of draft statutory guidance clarifying ‘significant influence or control’ in relation to People with Significant Control in companies and LLPs; (4) the National Crime Agency’s guidance on indicators of foreign bribery; (5) Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Purity Ltd, in which the Court granted the first ever petition by HMRC to wind up of a tax avoidance scheme promoter under Finance Act 2022; (6) the publication of the Scottish Budget; (7) the UK’s double tax treaties with Andorra, Portugal and Romania coming into force, and (8) proposed changes to Jersey’s Trust Law which clarify the position of secured lenders.

In brief: Appeal to First-tier Tribunal–necessity to show grounds (Clayton v Charity Commissioners)

Private Client analysis:The appellant, a trustee of a charity, appealed to the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory) (the Tribunal) in respect of a decision of the Charity Commission. Schedule 6 to the Charities Act 2011 (CA 2011) determines the circumstances in which an appeal can be made. The Appellant had not complied with directions to specify which provision of Schedule 6 he relied upon and his claim was struck out under the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 (the Tribunal Rules), r 8. Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.