If it is rather very shockingly the case that self funders do indeed subsidise the the LA places so that the LA budget goes further, are there any entirely private care homes, which should in theory have cheaper fees (or at least offer better value for money) on the basis that there are no LA subsidies hidden within the fees?
Saving assets from care fees, grrrr...
- Thread starter Witzend
- Start date
I'm probably wrong, will get shot down in flames but ..
I would assume the same rules will apply to planning permission on CH as to housing, whereby, if X wants to build more than Y houses, a percentage have to be offered as social housing.
My assumption would be that if X wants to build or convert a CH, they will be obliged to offer Y number of places for LA funded beds
If I am on the right lines, then there will never be self funded beds only
Also, if a CH was self funded only, no LA beds, then when the self funder couldn't meet the costs, they would have to move, which as we all hear, is not good for the PWD
I would assume the same rules will apply to planning permission on CH as to housing, whereby, if X wants to build more than Y houses, a percentage have to be offered as social housing.
My assumption would be that if X wants to build or convert a CH, they will be obliged to offer Y number of places for LA funded beds
If I am on the right lines, then there will never be self funded beds only
Also, if a CH was self funded only, no LA beds, then when the self funder couldn't meet the costs, they would have to move, which as we all hear, is not good for the PWD
Sam Luvit, that's what I wondered too, that there might be some CH regulation.
There must be a definite answer to it. I would be surprised however, as there are clear public policy reasons for ensuring that some new build apartment blocks allocate some homes to social housing and it is usually one of the requirements of the planning permission. Anti ghettoisation. Plus all the political push for affordable housing. Those apartments not allocated for social housing would have their prices determined by the market and wouldn't be higher to subsidise the other flats in the same block. The house hunter can buy wherever they want.
I can't think of a public policy reason for ensuring that vulnerable people's money dries up at perhaps a 100 % faster rate than it would do in a CH free market, thereby rendering them at the mercy of the public purse in half the time as might possibly be the case.
There must be a definite answer to it. I would be surprised however, as there are clear public policy reasons for ensuring that some new build apartment blocks allocate some homes to social housing and it is usually one of the requirements of the planning permission. Anti ghettoisation. Plus all the political push for affordable housing. Those apartments not allocated for social housing would have their prices determined by the market and wouldn't be higher to subsidise the other flats in the same block. The house hunter can buy wherever they want.
I can't think of a public policy reason for ensuring that vulnerable people's money dries up at perhaps a 100 % faster rate than it would do in a CH free market, thereby rendering them at the mercy of the public purse in half the time as might possibly be the case.
It would be great if 'someone' gave me £1300 to look after my mum 24-7. I get about £60. Mind you I don't do much in the entertainment area...TV has to suffice. And the food is very basic.
Ok perhaps £1300 is a little too much for my services...I'll settle on £600...a bargain.
If I worked out the hourly rate (excluding sleeping....but I am available...in the next room with a remote alarm to warn me if she gets up) then the £60 equates to less than £1 per hour....I thought there was a minimum wage.
There are quite a few of us on TP forum....perhaps we should start writing letters to our MP's on certain subjects, like making care homes more affordable....or perhaps an online petition or two...much like the Trump one....get over 100,000 votes and it gets debated in parliament.
I think Alzheimer UK and such charities are a little slow in harnessing the pester power of carers, families, professionals. My local Alzheimer UK representative - a lovely lady - seems to listen to my suggestions, tell me she will look into the matter and queitly forgets. I suppose we all want an easy life!
A petition to pay all carers the minimum wage....that's a good one. That would bankrupt the treasury....but also make them realise what we do.
Ok perhaps £1300 is a little too much for my services...I'll settle on £600...a bargain.
If I worked out the hourly rate (excluding sleeping....but I am available...in the next room with a remote alarm to warn me if she gets up) then the £60 equates to less than £1 per hour....I thought there was a minimum wage.
There are quite a few of us on TP forum....perhaps we should start writing letters to our MP's on certain subjects, like making care homes more affordable....or perhaps an online petition or two...much like the Trump one....get over 100,000 votes and it gets debated in parliament.
I think Alzheimer UK and such charities are a little slow in harnessing the pester power of carers, families, professionals. My local Alzheimer UK representative - a lovely lady - seems to listen to my suggestions, tell me she will look into the matter and queitly forgets. I suppose we all want an easy life!
A petition to pay all carers the minimum wage....that's a good one. That would bankrupt the treasury....but also make them realise what we do.
Can anyone advise me if my husband were to go into care we jointly own a flat worth about 60,000 would half of that be used to pay for fees as it's owned jointly or all of it? This is rented out by the way so assuming it was the case would it have to be sold?
Sent from my iPad using Talking Point
Sent from my iPad using Talking Point
If you are not living in the flat then it will be considered an asset and half the value will be included in your husband's estate. Whether you have to sell it or not will depend on how much other capital he has and how far that will go towards funding the fees of the care or nursing home.
Hi Amber
I'm not using exact numbers here (I can't remember them & round numbers are easier)
If a builder puts up 20 houses, he has to "sell" 4 more or less at cost to social housing, for them to rent out. So his profit is on 16 houses with the cost of 20 built. It's no surprise to see builders putting up 14 or 16 houses to stay under the limit & out of supplying social housing. It's about making the level of profit the builder wants. The builder is restricted by the housing market prices on his/ her profitability
CH are not plentiful & demand is growing. The self funders are forced into higher prices by the lack of supply. The CH get to protect their profits, even if they are forced into allocating a certain number of LA beds
The LA limit is based on what it "should" cost to provide a bed, no extras, no luxury, basic food, basic facilities, minimum staff levels. It's a bit like JSA, where you can only afford the basic range, then get a job & depending on your salary, it's the finest range, at least some of the time.
We want the best for our PWD. We don't want a shared room, with a basic bed & minimum staff. We want pictures on the walls, flowers in reception, clean uniforms, etc.
I don't believe it's about public policy of taking the PWD money as fast as possible, I think it's about CH profit margins. The CH owner wants a certain profit margin, so the self funders bring in the profits not available from the LA beds
Don't get me wrong, I don't think profit is a dirty word, if someone takes their available cash & builds or converts a CH, then they are taking a risk on getting it back, they are not doing it for charity, they are doing it to fund their lifestyle. You don't see many successful business people driving 10 year old cars, or going to Southport for their holidays (no slur on Southport intended!!).
It's not like we can boycott CH's, so we are stuck with the prices, until someone steps up & says "enough" IMHO
Sooner or later, a time will come, when a generation can't afford to buy houses, so there will be no assets to sell, so no top ups available, you can't get blood out of a stone, so prices will be forced to drop or something
I'm not using exact numbers here (I can't remember them & round numbers are easier)
If a builder puts up 20 houses, he has to "sell" 4 more or less at cost to social housing, for them to rent out. So his profit is on 16 houses with the cost of 20 built. It's no surprise to see builders putting up 14 or 16 houses to stay under the limit & out of supplying social housing. It's about making the level of profit the builder wants. The builder is restricted by the housing market prices on his/ her profitability
CH are not plentiful & demand is growing. The self funders are forced into higher prices by the lack of supply. The CH get to protect their profits, even if they are forced into allocating a certain number of LA beds
The LA limit is based on what it "should" cost to provide a bed, no extras, no luxury, basic food, basic facilities, minimum staff levels. It's a bit like JSA, where you can only afford the basic range, then get a job & depending on your salary, it's the finest range, at least some of the time.
We want the best for our PWD. We don't want a shared room, with a basic bed & minimum staff. We want pictures on the walls, flowers in reception, clean uniforms, etc.
I don't believe it's about public policy of taking the PWD money as fast as possible, I think it's about CH profit margins. The CH owner wants a certain profit margin, so the self funders bring in the profits not available from the LA beds
Don't get me wrong, I don't think profit is a dirty word, if someone takes their available cash & builds or converts a CH, then they are taking a risk on getting it back, they are not doing it for charity, they are doing it to fund their lifestyle. You don't see many successful business people driving 10 year old cars, or going to Southport for their holidays (no slur on Southport intended!!).
It's not like we can boycott CH's, so we are stuck with the prices, until someone steps up & says "enough" IMHO
Sooner or later, a time will come, when a generation can't afford to buy houses, so there will be no assets to sell, so no top ups available, you can't get blood out of a stone, so prices will be forced to drop or something
Hi Oilovlam
I'd accept £195, keep you under the tax rate, no additional calculations for tax office etc, all additional, outside work would be taxed, so dump that on business, no change there.
Add in 4 weeks at "respite" level, that you can use at any time on respite only and I'm in. Even 2 weeks & I'll cover the difference out of the pay rise. Simple model, easy to use, less paperwork. Win win.
16 hour waking day, 7 days a week, I think 55p an hour is on a par with the sweat shops so many people get so cross about & wage war on those businesses, but we do it for love & little thanks, so that's different, right
While I would happily sign a petition I would want someone else to write it up, I don't have the energy & I'm too cross to make it reasonable. It would be nice / good / whatever, if one of the charities with the power to contact all if "us" did something like this, but I guess it would be deemed political
My mum's home was at the time a bit more expensive than most local ones, but worth it we felt, especially as she would have been self-funding for some years. Their policy was to guarantee to accept LA rate with no top-up if a self-funding resident had been there for 3 years when capital fell below threshold. I believe that they did not accept residents who were LA-funded from day 1.
So I suppose at some point the non self- funded residents were being subsidised by the self-funded, but only after they had effectively subsidised others in previous years. That seemed fair enough to me.
If you expect to be self-funding for several years, I would, all else being equal, ask about the % of residents who are self-funding and whether the home has a similar policy.
My mum's home wasn't entirely self-funded (see my previous comment), but as they didn't accept residents who were LA-funded from day 1 I think that's pretty much a private only home. I agree, that does mean that at least all the fees should be better value for money. We certainly felt it offered a better quality of care as we wouldn't have felt otherwise we could justify paying fees somewhat above the local average.
Pickles, sounds like a good deal....piece of mind. Although I expect that it isn't guaranteed (nothing is nowadays).
I'm hoping that the guy who runs the Weatherspoon pub change starts in the CH business. I don't know how he offers food & drink at such low prices. It needs someone like him to shake things up.
Anyone who has read a newspaper, watched the news or various television programmes will know that private care or nursing homes are certainly no guarantee of good care. Some reported have had to close because the LA has removed residents they fund because of poor quality of care so where would the safeguard be for those who reside in a home where there is no such input from the LA? So it has its compensations.
Last edited:
Nor is who own it or how much you're paying it seems. From today's newspaper.
K
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...it-elderly-dementia-patient-s-head-chair.html
I have to say that people trying to "save" their inheritance have always really annoyed me. I'm referring to those people who are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to save their inheritance. The worst one that comes to mind is the person who wanted to send their parent to some place warm like India or the Philippines because "Mum would enjoy the climate". The fact that it would be much cheaper was the main driving force.
I agree that the system you have in the UK is unfair but one of the advantages of being self-funding is having choice. This is a very good thing.
I agree that the system you have in the UK is unfair but one of the advantages of being self-funding is having choice. This is a very good thing.
Same company was has been in the news locally regarding a home a five minute walk away from me which costs the earth . Also another on television some time ago.
Not sure if this contravenes T&Cs but if so please delete.
Last edited:
Someone in the USA found an even cheaper solution.
K
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...fering-father-Roger-Curry-threatened-him.html
My Mum has just gone into a Residential Care Home after a short spell in Hospital and being moved for continuing care. The home is slightly run down but the staff seem like they care and are always happy to talk to me and my Mum seems to be happy. I now visit her as a daughter and am not so stressed as I no longer have to check up on the Carers, do the shopping, order medication, housework etc.
After my Father died and my Mum first became ill she would say that their working hard and saving was for their children and grandchildrens inheritance and she would worry about it. She did not want to go into care and would argue about it. Now that she is at an advanced stage of this awful disease, inheritance is not an issue and to be honest whilst the care home charges have to be paid for by her funds, I do not think about it as my inheritance, but to make her comfortable and happy. Her home will now be sold to fund her ongoing care and if there is anything left then so be it, if there isnt then so be that too.
It gets to a point where money doesnt matter, the happiness and well being of the PWD is. x
After my Father died and my Mum first became ill she would say that their working hard and saving was for their children and grandchildrens inheritance and she would worry about it. She did not want to go into care and would argue about it. Now that she is at an advanced stage of this awful disease, inheritance is not an issue and to be honest whilst the care home charges have to be paid for by her funds, I do not think about it as my inheritance, but to make her comfortable and happy. Her home will now be sold to fund her ongoing care and if there is anything left then so be it, if there isnt then so be that too.
It gets to a point where money doesnt matter, the happiness and well being of the PWD is. x
Mum had her first social worker visit yesterday and she asked a lot of questions about the house. Their house has always been in dad's name. I understand that the house can't be sold to pay for her care as she has no ownership of it, but I'm hearing others say it doesn't matter as she's lived there all their married life therfore it is an asset. Can anyone tell me?
I know dad worries about losing his home to pay for her care. We, the kids, are all financially independent and don't want or need any inheritance, but he frets over being kicked out of his home.
I know dad worries about losing his home to pay for her care. We, the kids, are all financially independent and don't want or need any inheritance, but he frets over being kicked out of his home.
