Surely if your mum owns her house you could move her to a care home of your choice, if/when it became necessary? The house could be sold or, as you mention, rented out to cover the costs. So a council-funded, 'low-quality home' is not your only option. If your mother already needs 24/7 care, a home might be a good option for her and you would get your life back, could find work as you want to, etc. I don't know why you think 'it would destroy her'.
My mother was self-funding but the home also took council-funded residents - the place was great!
I'm not sure the council will want to continue funding care at home if your mother stops contributing due to falling below the lower savings threshold. I hate to say it but if they know she has a house to sell, they might be keen to move her to a home as that would mean she would have to pay and not them. So in fact, if your mum needs to move to a home, the financial situation would change completely, wouldn't it? Have I misunderstood? If you want your mum to continue to have care at home, AND for the council to pay all the costs, I think you'll have a battle on your hands sooner or later. If you can argue that it is in your mum's best interests to remain at home forever and can convince the council of that then of course they'd be paying for everything. Not many people manage that. And you'd get to keep the house, as I'm sure you know.
Have you misunderstood , well yes I’m afraid there would seem to be some misunderstanding.
Let’s go through a few of your points so I can make things as clear as possible.
Surely if your mum owns her house you could move her to a care home of your choice, if/when it became necessary? The house could be sold or, as you mention, rented out to cover the costs. So a council-funded, 'low-quality home' is not your only option.
My point right now is that moving mum to any care home is NOT the best viable option. But you are right if we were forced into that decision we could pay for a better care home than the council would almost certainly have provided if we were not self funding.
Mum will indeed be moved to the right quality care home when we reach that stage using capital from her home but we are NOT at that crossroads yet.
If your mother already needs 24/7 care, a home might be a good option for her and you would get your life back, could find work as you want to, etc. I don't know why you think 'it would destroy her'.
No it would not be a good option for her because she WANTS to stay in her own home. Really what is there not to understand about this? On my numerous visits she quite often says to me , “ you won’t be sending me to care home will you” It really is as simple as that . Why do you think that 24/7 care in a care home with less carers than clients would be a good or possibly better option when mum has 24/7 one to one care at home that is working very well given her situation. I have made it more than clear in my posts that my primary concern is keeping mum at home while that is what she wants. When the time comes for mum move to a care home she will get the best quality care since we will be self funding again with equity to use from her house.
Having been her son for sixty years I happen to be more qualified than most to know what environments my mother does and does not like . She was never one to go round to ladies coffee mornings her other communal groups. She hated such things. Instead she preferred one to one friendships and having a chat and a coffee at each other’s houses on various days. Mum has always been quite a private person and very family orientated, going to a place such as a care home while she still has some awareness and presence of mind would most certainly send her into a more rapid decline since I know she would not be happy. As it happens she is doing as well as could be expected at home with a gradual decline in her condition. Why on earth would I want to risk anything by changing the current formula given the situation? The time will come for a care home but that time has not arrived yet.
I'm not sure the council will want to continue funding care at home if your mother stops contributing due to falling below the lower savings threshold. I hate to say it but if they know she has a house to sell, they might be keen to move her to a home as that would mean she would have to pay and not them. So in fact, if your mum needs to move to a home, the financial situation would change completely, wouldn't it? Have I misunderstood? If you want your mum to continue to have care at home, AND for the council to pay all the costs, I think you'll have a battle on your hands sooner or later. If you can argue that it is in your mum's best interests to remain at home forever and can convince the council of that then of course they'd be paying for everything. Not many people manage that. And you'd get to keep the house, as I'm sure you know.
I have already stated that mum is already funding approx 30% of her live in care costs from existing income which does not include any savings so reaching the lower threshold will be of no consequence in her ability to pay. Reaching the lower threshold will actually have the golden lining of giving Mum an extra £200 income a month to live on which will help towards the expense of having an extra person in the house 24 /7.
Of course the council know she owns her house, all of that is disclosed at the financial assessment stage. For your information after seeing mum’s existing situation with her then self funded live in carer and speaking with mum in detail the social services lady was in 100% agreement that mum staying at home was in her best interests, so there you have an unbiased opinion from a 3rd party without the advantage of 60 years experience who agreed with me about what was in mum’s best interest. In fact social services said that a person staying in their home environment where at all possible was infinitely preferred over sending someone to a care home since continuity of surroundings for some people with dementia was very important and beneficial. My mum fitted that criteria and the social services lady, God bless her, performed her job by following her “duty of care” obligation to the letter. She put my mum first and not the councils fund collecting machine which they are legally bound to do but questionably sometimes fail to.
I am a realist , of course I know mum will not be able to stay in her home forever if she lives long enough. As I have already stated when the time that living at home is not the best solution mum will be moved to the best care home we can get for her needs. At that stage I think mum will probably not be aware of her surroundings or probably who I am anymore but we will deal with that day and any challenges if and when it arrives.
