Self funding? Local authority funded? I don't understand!

[yorkshirerosie]

Mum has £10k left in savings and owns her home.
I have spoken to someone at the new Belong Village regards to mum moving in and they worked out that mum would be able to afford a maximum of 5 years with them before having to be moved into a home where local authority will also fund.
Belong seems to have all the requirements mum needs, I can pass it off as a hotel or apartment block which is most important as mum is adamant she doesn't want to go into a home.
A social worker has given me a list of other homes which accept local authority funding but I don't understand how this is going to help mum, she will still have to sell her house won't she?
Is there any particular financial benefit to mum to look at home which do accept council funding?
I really don't understand !

 

[nita]

I think what the Social worker means, yorkshirerosie, is that your mother would have to sell her home to fund moving into the Belong Village. When that money ran out, she would have to be funded by the Local Authority who would presumably move her to a residential care home which was one they were prepared to fund. Your mother would keep any savings below £13,000.

Perhaps the SW is taking the long view, that your mother's condition will worsen and that she may not be able to stay in the village anyway (I presume this is an assisted living facility?). She is thinking it may be too many upheavals for her, moving from her own home to the village, to a care home.

However, if your mother were to go straight into a care home now, as she owns her own home, she would have to sell that to raise the funds for the fees, even though she would have her own choice of care home. Does your mother live alone as the rules are different if there is someone else living with her, such as a spouse or older relative?

 

[realist1234]

From what you say, it appears this care home charge more than what the Local Authority will pay? Im from NI but the same basic rules apply. In NI, the authority will currently only pay a max of £481 per week (or £581 if a nursing home). If your mum's house is sold and along with her savings are worth more than £23,250 then she would be deemed by the LA to be self-funding. The money from her house/savings and income (pensions etc) would be used to pay the full home fees until her money is reduced to below £23,250 after which the LA will make a contribution. The home seems to be saying based on the value of her house/savings, their fees would be covered for 5 years. The issue is whenever her savings reduce to £23250, after the 5 years, the LA will only make a contribution such that a max of £481 per week of fees is paid to the home, so you would have to pay the balance as a 3rd party - the so-called 'top-up'.

For example, if home charges £600 per week in fees, then you would have to pay £119 per week in top-up fees (£600 - £481) once your mum's savings reduce to below £23,250.

Its a disgrace that families are having to pay towards their relatives care home fees, particularly given that so many are privately run and charge more than the 'standard' rate, but clearly this government doesnt give a damn!

Peter

Mum has £10k left in savings and owns her home.
I have spoken to someone at the new Belong Village regards to mum moving in and they worked out that mum would be able to afford a maximum of 5 years with them before having to be moved into a home where local authority will also fund.
Belong seems to have all the requirements mum needs, I can pass it off as a hotel or apartment block which is most important as mum is adamant she doesn't want to go into a home.
A social worker has given me a list of other homes which accept local authority funding but I don't understand how this is going to help mum, she will still have to sell her house won't she?
Is there any particular financial benefit to mum to look at home which do accept council funding?
I really don't understand !

 

[yorkshirerosie]

Thanks guys that's really helpful.
My thoughts were that Belong would offer mum the quality of life now along with 24hours care.
As mum is only 67 her condition is worsening quite quickly so I doubt that she will know if we have to move her after 5 years.
As I mentioned earlier she is really anxious about us putting her in a home and I know she will put up a fight. I have described Belong as a retirement village where you buy an apartment and she's considering it rather than screaming and threatening to run away.
I do understand a lot more now though x

 

[WILLIAMR]

From what you say, it appears this care home charge more than what the Local Authority will pay? Im from NI but the same basic rules apply. In NI, the authority will currently only pay a max of £481 per week (or £581 if a nursing home). If your mum's house is sold and along with her savings are worth more than £23,250 then she would be deemed by the LA to be self-funding. The money from her house/savings and income (pensions etc) would be used to pay the full home fees until her money is reduced to below £23,250 after which the LA will make a contribution. The home seems to be saying based on the value of her house/savings, their fees would be covered for 5 years. The issue is whenever her savings reduce to £23250, after the 5 years, the LA will only make a contribution such that a max of £481 per week of fees is paid to the home, so you would have to pay the balance as a 3rd party - the so-called 'top-up'.

For example, if home charges £600 per week in fees, then you would have to pay £119 per week in top-up fees (£600 - £481) once your mum's savings reduce to below £23,250.

Its a disgrace that families are having to pay towards their relatives care home fees, particularly given that so many are privately run and charge more than the 'standard' rate, but clearly this government doesnt give a damn!

Peter

Hi Peter

I agree with what you are saying.
That is why people by me split their house in to tenants in common ownership and each parent leaves their halves of the property to the offspring.
The son / daughter then refuses to sell when the parent goes in to care and the council can not take the house in to account unless both parents are in care at the same time.
In a lot of cases by me the son's / daughters are selling their own houses and then moving in to the parents house to avoid keeping 2 houses going.
I know this annoys some social workers but I do know 2 social workers have done this personally.

William

 

[Pickles53]

We all want top-quality care for our relatives and ourselves. We also want to protect our money so it can be inherited by our children, and we apparently don't want to pay more of any kind of tax. So more and more of us go down the route suggested by William which significantly increases the number of people whose care has to be funded by LA.

Just how are the sums supposed to add up if the demand increases exponentially when the system is barely coping now?

 

[WILLIAMR]

We all want top-quality care for our relatives and ourselves. We also want to protect our money so it can be inherited by our children, and we apparently don't want to pay more of any kind of tax. So more and more of us go down the route suggested by William which significantly increases the number of people whose care has to be funded by LA.

Just how are the sums supposed to add up if the demand increases exponentially when the system is barely coping now?

Pickles

I see what you are saying.
The law may be changed at some point but people are generally only interested in themselves and their families.
I see nothing wrong in say a mother wanting her share of her estate going to the offspring to prevent it being used for the father's care or going to another family should the father get married again.
I don't think much could be done about existing situations however where the offspring are half owners.

William

 

[jenniferpa]

I can see how it could be done. For example, they are talking about (maybe have decided on) no longer having deferred payment agreements to be interest free. The LA couldn't force the sale of a house but I see no reason that they couldn't place a deferred payment agreement/lien up to the value of 50% of the property.

 

[garnuft]

I can see how it could be done. For example, they are talking about (maybe have decided on) no longer having deferred payment agreements to be interest free. The LA couldn't force the sale of a house but I see no reason that they couldn't place a deferred payment agreement/lien up to the value of 50% of the property.

Amen to that.

 

[WILLIAMR]

I can see how it could be done. For example, they are talking about (maybe have decided on) no longer having deferred payment agreements to be interest free. The LA couldn't force the sale of a house but I see no reason that they couldn't place a deferred payment agreement/lien up to the value of 50% of the property.

There is a clause on our land certificate saying no chage, sale or transfer without the consent of all owners. I dont see how that can be altered.

William

 

[garnuft]

people are generally only interested in themselves and their families.

Not all of us, thankfully. I want social care to be free at the point of need just like health care but I don't see how that can happen when people have their eye on an inheritance.

The system has been milked dry, it's time it stopped.

People who spend their lives working pay their taxes...if you've had children you haven't even paid for their education never mind their healthcare...never mind your pension, never mind your own healthcare.

It's because we all contribute, en masse... that's how the man or woman who lives on their own with dementia and a desperate need for help and support, sitting in their own urine and faeces until the next visit, no family, no house, no money gets the help they need...that's how we stop such a travesty from happening in Britain 2014.

Not to mention the people who are lucky enough to share their homes with someone who cares for them, husband, wife, daughter, son...mother.

More money towards better care will stop their lives from being devastated by caring for someone with an illness or disability.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Simple Physics.

 

[WILLIAMR]

I can see how it could be done. For example, they are talking about (maybe have decided on) no longer having deferred payment agreements to be interest free. The LA couldn't force the sale of a house but I see no reason that they couldn't place a deferred payment agreement/lien up to the value of 50% of the property.

There is a clause on our land certificate saying no chage, sale or transfer without the consent of all owners. I dont see how that can be altered.
Of course CRAG gets in the way.


William

 

[WILLIAMR]

Not all of us, thankfully. I want social care to be free at the point of need just like health care but I don't see how that can happen when people have their eye on an inheritance.

The system has been milked dry, it's time it stopped.

People who spend their lives working pay their taxes...if you've had children you haven't even paid for their education never mind their healthcare...never mind your pension, never mind your own healthcare.

It's because we all contribute, en masse... that's how the man or woman who lives on their own with dementia and a desperate need for help and support, sitting in their own urine and faeces until the next visit, no family, no house, no money gets the help they need...that's how we stop such a travesty from happening in Britain 2014.

Not to mention the people who are lucky enough to share their homes with someone who cares for them, husband, wife, daughter, son...mother.

More money towards better care will stop their lives from being devastated by caring for someone with an illness or disability.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Simple Physics.

What would you do if the son / daughter is living in the house and half owns it. They are entitled to withold their consent for any charge to be placed on the property.

 

[garnuft]

I would have the law changed so that a charge can be made for the 50%.

 

[Pickles53]

I would have the law changed so that a charge can be made for the 50%.

Well said garnuft. It might not be possible to apply this retrospectively but it could surely be done for the future; tax laws are often changed to close perceived loopholes.

Even if you only care about yourself and your own family, few of us could afford to meet the entire costs of our own care. If we head down the route of everyone just looking out for themselves, most of us will end up being bankrupted by paying our own health care & social care costs. This happens to too many families in the USA still. Fine if you want take the risk and accept that you must be totally self-reliant, but it seems too many of us want to keep our own money but somehow think someone else should pick up the tab when something bad happens.

 

[LYN T]

Pickles

The law may be changed at some point but people are generally only interested in themselves and their families.

William

My bolding

I'm not. My Daughter (my family) isn't. My Son in Law isn't. Don't know about my Grandson as he's only 5 years old. I hope he follows his parents caring, selfless and socially aware attitude.

 

[jeany123]

My bolding

I'm not. My Daughter (my family) isn't. My Son in Law isn't. Don't know about my Grandson as he's only 5 years old. I hope he follows his parents caring, selfless and socially aware attitude.

None of my family are either, it must be awful to care for money more than the welfare of our family and other people,
It is lucky that everyone doesn't think like that or the world would be in a worse mess than it is, There are some caring people out there,

 

[LYN T]

None of my family are either, it must be awful to care for money more than the welfare of our family and other people,

I agree Jeany

I actually feel sorry for people who appear to have such sad views. They may be rich in material terms but very poor in other areas.

Such a shame

 

[MrsTerryN]

We have a different system, currently, here in Australia. We pay a refundable bond and monthly fees worked out on income
Mum has three Pensions so she pays about half the cost. The other half is met by the government
She was able to fund the bond with monies she and dad had.
My...... Upsettnesss (I know not a word) is that they had all this money and they didn't get to enjoy it.
I will as after death the bond is returned and I am the only beneficiary.
Oh there is also a house.
I just think it is sad that they continued to 'save for a rainy day' in the seventies only to have their daughter get it all.

 

[WILLIAMR]

I agree Jeany

I actually feel sorry for people who appear to have such sad views. They may be rich in material terms but very poor in other areas.

Such a shame

I think if they do change the law account would have to be taken of people living with the parent now as a joint owner / carer not just from the time the care is needed.
I know of a situation where a daughter is 65+, widowed, been caring for her father for 9 years in the jointly owned bungalow. She inherited her mother's half.
She has spent some of the proceeds of her marital home on the bungalow.
If her father had to go in to care she has probably kept no account of what she has spent on her father / bungalow.
In view of the timescale I think it would be unfair for any of the bungalow to be taken in to account for care fees purposes.

I don't think any of the bungalow I inherited from my parents could be taken in to account morally or legally either as it was owned by me and my step mother only had a life time / entry in to care tenancy after my father died.

Also account has to be taken that the daughter has provided free care for 9 years saving the tax payer money as I am sure the value of the bungalow would have been used up by now had the father needed to go in to residential care.

William