Avoiding paying Care home fees

[SnowWhite]

We are in the process of selling Mums house to pay her care home fees. Twice in the past few days people have asked me how it's going and told me how they found a way round it. One told me her father put half his bungalow in her name so they couldn't touch that part. Another man told me to get my Mum to treat herself to some VERY expensive jewellery to get rid of some of the money.

I am basically a very honest person, as is Mum but it is making me think.

Mum has barely any savings now and her and Dad worked so hard to buy their council house years ago and she was out cleaning people's houses and my dad was working all week full time and then doing an extra job on Saturdays. Neither of them smoked or drank and we didn't have a holiday until I was 16 and we went to the New Forest.

I know some won't agree with me but it does bother me that all her money (bar £23,000) will be eaten up in Care home fees for a condition she can do nothing about and she's not even happy there most of the time!

 

[lemonjuice]

I must admit having spent over £200 000 in fees over the past 5 years I do wish my father hadn't died intestate and therefore his share of the house passed automatically to my mother.
Like your parents they sacrificed to get on the housing ladder , not being able to afford new clothes or holidays and my mother couldn't even afford to visit her parents for the first 8 years of their marriage, by which time her father had died.

My father and mother would be devastated to think all that sacrifice means there will be nothing left to pass on to their grandchildren. My mother's share of the house obviously but that my father's share is also swallowed up is what I find particularly difficult, especially as her had instructed me what to do with his share. All that is now irrelevant. If only he had realised.

 

[Oh Knickers]

Snowhite,

This is really tough. HOwever, your parents have done well to have enough resources to look after themselves in old age. Should you do anything now it may very well be picked up by the SS (Social Services).

When looking for care just check with the care homes that, should your mum run out of money, she will be moved to the Local Council rate and not be moved. When I was doing research for mother that was one of the questions I asked. The three I liked said she could just be moved to the Local Council rate once her savings got to £23,235 - or whatever it is. She would also get the council support of £150 ish per week.

I know it may unfair after all your parents' hard work. But care costs. Either you do the care yourself, and end up totally wrecked. Or your mum pays for her care.

Take care.

 

[Tin]

Do these people have their elderly parents in a care home now? If not and they have done this in anticipation then they may be surprised when the time comes. For your two stories, I can give you three that I know of who have had their parents transfer home ownership to them, thinking there inheritance will be safe, but no, each one was investigated, accounts etc back 7 years and they did not get away with it.

 

[Beate]

That's the thing. While some might get away with it, many others will not, and it's simply not worth the risk.
You could see it this way though - she worked so hard so she can afford a good care home now, one she isn't put into by the council because it's the cheapest. Having money gives people a choice, and that's not a bad thing.

 

[Kevinl]

It is wrong that anyone needing care for a medical condition should be made to pay for it, as Mahatma Gandhi said"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." That said things are the way they are and we all have to live within the rules.
The guidance notes for the 2104 care act, annex E say that:
"9) A person can deprive themselves of capital in many ways, but common approaches may be:
(a) a lump-sum payment to someone else, for example as a gift
(b) substantial expenditure has been incurred suddenly and is out of character with previous spending
(c) the title deeds of a property have been transferred to someone else
(d) assets have been put in to a trust that cannot be revoked
(e) assets have been converted into another form that would be subject to a disregard under the financial assessment, for example personal possessions
(f) assets have been reduced by living extravagantly, for example gambling
(g) assets have been used to purchase an investment bond with life insurance.
So what these people are suggesting is a deprivation of assets.
This may never come to light, the person may never need care, they may die while still self financing but if you apply for LA funding and it does come to light then they will have to face the consequences.
The LA will take the view that the person still has the asset and refuse to fund or they can fund and recover the money as set out in Annex D.
In the past LA's were much easier to fool that they are now and I can see that it's going to lead to a lot more questions being asked. Why would anyone give away half or all their house other than to avoid care fees? Why would anyone well short if the Inheritance Tax threshold put there house in a trust other than to avoid care fees.
There are legitimate reasons why some things may be done, people have complicated lives, multiple marriages, children to different partners, step children and all the rest why people may take certain steps to their assets are "isolated" to protect them,
Let's say you do give away half your house to you daughter and then she get's divorced, her share of the house will form part of the divorce settlement so a quarter of the house may end up owned by your ex-son in law.
Like breaking any other rule, if you get away with it If you don't
I'm waiting for a thread on here that goes "We put our house in trust/gave a share to the kids and the LA won't pay his care home fees". I think it's only a matter of time before it happens, when it does then I won't be surprised.
K

 

[nicoise]

When my mum used to ask me what was going to happen, my answer was "I don't know Mum, but we'll make it as good as we can..."

Luckily she had saved for a rainy day, and this was her rainy day.

I was able to find a lovely care home for her, where I felt if it was me moving there I would be happy about it. She didn't spend very long there, time ran out for her all too soon.

But the best thing was she was able to fund a place I felt happy with on many levels, and that was right for her.

When she first fell ill I was shocked about dementia and care homes, and the whole horrible truth about fees and self-funding. But once I'd read up on it, and understood about having to pay for care if your funds exceeded a certain amount, I adjusted to that harsh reality. I did resent it, I don't deny it, but accepted it as the way things were.

It is what it is, it's not fair, none of it is, but just try to make it as good as you can x

 

[BeardyD]

When my wife was diagnosed with dementia people we barely knew would become "experts" and explain why she hadn't got dementia, how it can easily be cured and how forgetful they are so it isn't a problem.

It sounds as if you have a similar set of "experts". Are they really saying what they did? or did someone they know do it? or did they hear it in the pub? Sounds as though you need to ignore them and take advice from the other posters in this thread.

Reiterating what Kevinl and nicole have said, it may be unfair to have to pay for care (and it may be unfair that some people can afford and some can't) but the reality is that she has to pay so make the most of it and find a care home where your mum can spend HER money and be happy. Remember that if your mum is self-funding she will still get the whole of her pension and any other income she has at the moment, even some allowances. Also she won't have the costs associated with her house or food etc.

 

[Kevinl]

Are they really saying what they did? or did someone they know do it? or did they hear it in the pub?

Many years ago I asked about help for my mother, the LA said they would want the last 3 months bank statements, how they would find out how many accounts she had and where I don't know. I could have produced one set of bank statements from one bank and as long as her pension was going in and the usual utilities going out they would probably have accepted that as her bank account.
After she passed away the solicitor tracked down several I had no idea existed, she's lived with me for 2 years and all the post had been redirected to me and I'd never seen anything to do with any of them. I believe they use a "subject access" request and blanket bomb all the banks and building societies as part of the probate procedure.
More recently when my wife might have needed a financial assessment I was told they could go back "as far as we like" but a year what they did normally.
What happened years ago and what people have got away with may have worked then but would it work now is the question? People will go to the press when the LA make a mistake but the LA don't go to the papers when they catch someone out, unless it goes to court. I did 35in a 30 limit today and got away with it, doesn't make it legal
K

 

[Marnie63]

I think the only way to 'avoid care fees'. Is to plan well ahead. Make sure you transfer property ownership to children and not hold vast sums of savings in your own name. Of course not everyone will want to do this, depending on the relationship with their children. If done 20 or 30 years before any kind of dementia diagnosis, who on earth would class this as 'deprivation of assets'?

This issue is totally insane. No other illness demands hundreds of thousands of pounds to be spent on medical care for it. Yes, it is how it is, I accept that, but good on people who plan ahead for something like this (legally, of course).

I often wonder how many years the authorities would go back. Would they, for example, root out that 25 years before someone got dementia, they transferred their assets to their kids and how could they prove this was done in anticipation of dementia and to avoid care home fees? Unless there was a blanket ban on anyone doing something like this, but how?

 

[Pickles53]

Reading so many posts on here from people who are struggling with SS made me relieved that mum was self-funding and that our choice of care home was entirely down to us. We didn't have to argue about whether she would be safe at home with a few care visits a day or wait for a crisis so it all happened relatively smoothly.

My parents were like yours, they lived very frugal lives, but the rainy day they had saved for arrived with a vengeance when mum got dementia.

I don't agree with the funding system either, but until the majority of the population is willing to vote for full social care funding and pay taxes at a level that would enable it to happen we are where we are. Please don't rely on anecdote or hearsay; there are a lot of urban myths floating around. You are putting yourselves and your mum at great risk if you try to dodge the rules; it's not worth it.

 

[oilovlam]

The people 'over the road' have split their house and they each own half.....to avoid care home fees I believe.

I guess it also has to be accompanied with a will, leaving the half share of the house & half share of cash to someone else (the children presumably). All perfectly legal. But it has to be done when they are mentally capable and not under a POA.

Hiding any assets in jewellery or ming vases is presumably a 'clever' thing to do but it's deprivation of assets & therefore illegal. But I expect it's what the 'clever' people do to keep wealth in their family (funny how the rich get richer).

We went to see a solicitor and the only legal thing he came up with was to buy a funeral bond....which told us there was nothing we could do (legally).

 

[Saffie]

I think the only way to 'avoid care fees'. Is to plan well ahead. Make sure you transfer property ownership to children and not hold vast sums of savings in your own name. Of course not everyone will want to do this, depending on the relationship with their children. If done 20 or 30 years before any kind of dementia diagnosis, who on earth would class this as 'deprivation of assets'?

This issue is totally insane. No other illness demands hundreds of thousands of pounds to be spent on medical care for it. Yes, it is how it is, I accept that, but good on people who plan ahead for something like this (legally, of course).

I often wonder how many years the authorities would go back. Would they, for example, root out that 25 years before someone got dementia, they transferred their assets to their kids and how could they prove this was done in anticipation of dementia and to avoid care home fees? Unless there was a blanket ban on anyone doing something like this, but how?

It isn't that simple. It's not always a wise thing to transfer property to children as you are also transferring it to their partners, present or future, too. If they then separate, the other half could end up owning part of your home whilst you are living there.

Paying for care is something the elderly have had to do for many years, regardless of dementia although it is the increasing numbers of people now living to an older age - and with associated dementia - that is highlighting this.
Leaving property for descendants is relatively new for those of moderate incomes which has come about because of the great increases in property values in the latter half of the last century. Lovely though it is to be able to do this, the value of the property is still owned by the person who bought it and as the OP said, many struggled to pay for the home as we did, so if it can be used to benefit them in old age, surely it is good that it can do so.

It costs to live anywhere so one has to offset expenditure of living at home and all that entails, added to rent and any social and/or nursing care required against care/nursing home costs.
Yes, I can understand why some feel cheated of an inheritance but until a person has died, it remains their asset and if any is left after their need for it is over, that is surely a bonus.

 

[Scouts girl]

As we all say it is what it is. I am upset and angry that I have to sell my mums lovely little house that her and my dad scrimped and saved to pay for but little did we know that mum was going to be cursed with this dreadful illness and to have to get the 24 hour care that she now needs all those years ago. I am thankful that she is being well cared for as I could not look after her at home any more. So, what was the alternative, I was reaching carers breakdown and needed help and although I begrudge having to sell mums property to pay for the care fees I am of the opinion nothing is for free these days. The family want the best care for her, it is her money and if that means spending it in her care in her final years then so be it. I could not dodge the rules and put my mums care at risk. We have to abide by the SS rules however much it goes against the grain!!

 

[philamillan]

Interesting discussion.

The truth is that it is not fair for the only aspect of health to be costed is being old and frail. This reflects the view of society on the elderly.

Conversely, this is not a problem in many developing countries because it is assumed that the family will take care of the elderly. It is not clear why we do not feel the same responsibility here.

Potentially the best way of protecting the assets of your parents is to sell their house and build an extension with all the facilities in place. This will become the permanent place of residence and would therefore incorporate their inheritance under one roof.

However, this would have to be agreed among all the family that the person who delivers the care would receive the inheritance. Can you imagine the conflict!

There is no easy answer but it comes down to the fact that if no one wants to pick up that responsibility then someone will have to pay for the care.

 

[Beate]

It isn't simply about "not wanting", is it though? Some of us care for many years until the needs become so great that we alone can't deal with them anymore, and a care home becomes the only option. And then it rankles a lot to see a home being paid so much for a job we used to do ourselves. And yes, it's not fair that social care doesn't get the same investment as medical care. But we're not making it better by trying to cheat the system so there is even less in the pot for the poor people who have the same right to care than the richer ones.

 

[oilovlam]

..... And then it rankles a lot to see a home being paid so much for a job we used to do ourselves.....

And the care probably isn't as good in some respects. Problem is that in giving that care the carer sometimes gets injured.

But it must make you feel proud that you could do what it now takes a team of people & a big organisation to handle.

 

[lemonjuice]

. . .Reiterating what Kevinl and nicole have said, it may be unfair to have to pay for care (and it may be unfair that some people can afford and some can't) but the reality is that she has to pay so make the most of it and find a care home where your mum can spend HER money and be happy. Remember that if your mum is self-funding she will still get the whole of her pension and any other income she has at the moment, even some allowances. Also she won't have the costs associated with her house or food etc.

I agree caree has to be paid for and I am glad that my parents had enough savings for me to be able to choose a good NH for her.

What I find difficult is that because of her very severe dementia there is no way she could be looked after at home and it has to be a NH, which means that despite several pensions, she and my father were both in the Civil service. her income is less than a third of what it now costs her 'to live'.
There is no way one can prepare for eventualities like that and I find it difficult to face realising that in our declining years, when we hoped to be able to have a 'bit spare', people are being forced to live way beyond their incomes, through no fault of their own.

 

[Pete R]

Conversely, this is not a problem in many developing countries because it is assumed that the family will take care of the elderly. It is not clear why we do not feel the same responsibility here.

That is a very broad statement indeed and all encompassing use of the word "WE" which certainly does not include me.

I gave up quite a lot to care for my Mom in her own home which I slowly converted to meet her ever increasing needs.

I am very lucky that Mom is a mainly amicable sufferer from dementia who is normally compliant apart from when it comes to personal care for her double incontinence. How am I supposed to care for her at home 24 hours a day with only four 1 hour visits a day? How am I supposed to go out to work which was already cut from 6 days a week to 2 days before she went into a NH?

I have asked her old GP surgery if they would have a back as a patient and have been told "NO" as she needs too much supervision on medication and circulatory problems in her legs due to her being unable to communicate her needs..

Luckily I am still fairly fit and healthy but how is a worn out, untrained, unhelped pensioner supposed to cope with a OH who because of the dementia is violent and non compliant?

Without the dementia I assume that Mom would still be able to recognise her limitations and not be a risk without 24hrs supervision. She would know when she was in pain, needed to eat/drink and ask to be taken to the toilet. If this was all possible she would still be in her own home.

I believe caring for the elderly and caring for the elderly with dementia are two very different subjects.

If you have converted your own home and have a PWD living with you I commend you whole heartedly. How on earth do you cope?

 

[canary]

The people 'over the road' have split their house and they each own half.....to avoid care home fees I believe.

My OH and I have done this. It has not changed the ownership of the house as such - we each owned half the house before and we still own half the house each - we just own it as Tenants in Common as apposed to jointly. The reason we have done this is because we have both left our share of the house to our children in our wills. There is no question of a care home ATM and we did this before OH was diagnosed with FTD, but after mum I knew that dementia could happen to anybody.

We have not done this to avoid paying care home fees - half the house will still take either of us above the limit for self-funding - but more to give the children something to fund the top-up fees when the money runs out.....