I totally a agree that the system is not right and unfair, but I am upset by the implication that anyone Not self funding is a scrounger in some way. It is not easy to get funding and there are many reason why people get it and not just because they haven't worked hard and struggled all their lives
My mothers care home have increased her fees to cover council funded shortfall
- Thread starter Takemewithyou
- Start date
Have I missed the part where one of the responders have implied that council funded residents are 'scroungers'?
This isn't an attack on the council funded people. Its an attack on the system.
I freely admit that I don't have any exact figures.
But I've read many times that the average UK care home resident is expected to stay for about 2 years. The average UK house price is about £250,000. Even with a lot of leeway, and supposing the average fee per month is about £3000 (?), I don't expect that most self funders will eventually need LA assiastance.
I've just applied for probate on my mum's estate. As I said on a couple of other threads, she had a total pot of £240K (mainly from the sale of her house) when she went into the CH in Feb 2005 - and after nearly eight years, there's plenty left as an inheritance. I really think we need to scotch this fallacy that if you self fund, everything will necessarily have to be spent.
That's an interesting point, John. Same with people who don't have children who contribute to the education system through their taxes. Should they get an opt-out? I regard it as being part of a civilised society. Many people are not in the fortunate position to have been able to save.
What is the alternative to the LA funding people who can't self fund? Imagine the outrage if those who couldn't pay had to stay in dormitories instead of having their own room (and before anyone scoffs at that, this was the situation for my grandfather back in 1970). And a LA has a duty to its council tax payers to get the best value for money that it can.
The only people losing out are the heirs* - the person in the CH will receive the same care whether self-funded or paid for by the LA.
* and it's not their money.
My MIL had worked all her life but at low paid jobs, her last one being a cleaner at local hospital. Her husband worked at local electricity board but passed away 12 years before she needed to go into a care home. Her bungalow was sold to pay for care but it was only worth just over 100k. She was not wealthy! Her fees were higher than the LA residents but naively I thought that was due to a discount as they were funding many residents, rather than my MIL paying extra. As it happens there was a small amount left when she died but my husband and I had many discussions on what we would do when the money ran out.
Personally I feel this is an unfair system, I can appreciate if you are wealthy you should contribute but my MIL had wanted her savings to benefit her children/grandchildren. Luckily she thought she was not paying anything so was content. If she had realised what was happening she would have been very sad.
I am glad she was comfortable in her last years but feel some fairer system is needed. We worried that we would have to move her which would have been very unsettling.
I have often heard the argument about people without children paying for others education and not complaining. To me this is crazy. We were all children once so when we grow up the money we pay towards the tax system pays for our own education in retrospect. Each child will grow up and get a job (hopefully) and pay for their own education.
Personally I feel this is an unfair system, I can appreciate if you are wealthy you should contribute but my MIL had wanted her savings to benefit her children/grandchildren. Luckily she thought she was not paying anything so was content. If she had realised what was happening she would have been very sad.
I am glad she was comfortable in her last years but feel some fairer system is needed. We worried that we would have to move her which would have been very unsettling.
I have often heard the argument about people without children paying for others education and not complaining. To me this is crazy. We were all children once so when we grow up the money we pay towards the tax system pays for our own education in retrospect. Each child will grow up and get a job (hopefully) and pay for their own education.
That does seem to be the accepted figure but we can see from TP that many people remain in a home for more years than this. Many residents in my husband's home have been there a number of years too - and it is a nursing home. I wonder just how accurate this figure now is.
I guess that may well be based on LA figures and it's an average - so the ones who stay six months cancel out the ones in there for longer.
I'd imagine it'd be very difficult to get figures for the self funders, who may go into care earlier than the LA funded ones and stay longer. SS were not involved with my mum at all, other than setting up a day centre place back in 2004.
My elderly neighbours feel the same and are incensed that the government will impose an inheritance tax of 40% on any part of their estate over the £650K joint threshold.
I guess it all rather depends on which bit of the wealth line you're sitting on.....
I saw my parents scrimp and save to afford their own home, while those who lived in council houses seemed to have holidays every year we never did. I also discovered my Mum paid more for her level of care than someone council funded. I even queried why this was happening with a social worker who did her vulnerable person review of my mum about 8 weeks before Mum died. Mum hadn't seen a social worker for three years before this..was not viewed as high risk!!
I have no argument about funding care....just find it upsetting that two people with the same income all their lives could end up funding or not due to the basis of their financial decisions during their life..whether to pay for holidays or a home...
And as for the argument about the childless paying for education...don't get me started!
I have been asked why I expect education, maternity pay, child benefit etc. my response is that I work a lot harder than those without children to support tomorrow's social infrastructure. Your doctor, lawyer, bin man, nurse, meals on wheels person, painter, joiner, plumber, car mechanic etc. was once someone's child and that person sacrificed and worked hard, without time off, so that there was someone there to help you out in your old age. It doesn't matter if it is an immigrant or local...a mother or father had that effort and you should support and help out for the good of society...ok rant over Ill get back in my box!
I have no argument about funding care....just find it upsetting that two people with the same income all their lives could end up funding or not due to the basis of their financial decisions during their life..whether to pay for holidays or a home...
And as for the argument about the childless paying for education...don't get me started!
I have been asked why I expect education, maternity pay, child benefit etc. my response is that I work a lot harder than those without children to support tomorrow's social infrastructure. Your doctor, lawyer, bin man, nurse, meals on wheels person, painter, joiner, plumber, car mechanic etc. was once someone's child and that person sacrificed and worked hard, without time off, so that there was someone there to help you out in your old age. It doesn't matter if it is an immigrant or local...a mother or father had that effort and you should support and help out for the good of society...ok rant over Ill get back in my box!
what occurs to me is this - if self-funders are required to subsidise council residents, then their 'pot' of money (savings) will decrease more quickly, given that the fees are then increased.
If their savings then decrease to the level that reach the threshold under which they are eligible for council support, (think its £23500 or thereabouts) they will become eligible for council funding themselves - and so it will perpetuate!
Does it make ANY sense? Does it *&^%$£"!
I guess a lot will depend on where you live. Anywhere around London and the SE, where house prices are so bl**dy ridiculous, presumably they will reason that if a house has been sold (as so often) then the proceeds are going to provide at least a few years of care, and a bit on top isn't going to make much difference.
My mother lives in the North of England. At the time of trying to sell her house, house prices were rock bottom. The semi-detached house in good condition was valued at £99k. After two years of trying to sell it and paying for the house and attempting to maintain it, I sold the house for as low as I was permitted to by our LA. The financial burden was way too much for me to keep the house on the market any longer.
So, as my mother has very little money (and she had no savings), and is in fairly good physical health, her money will run out fairly soon and she will probably have many years left to exist in the care home.
And then someone else who is self-funded will be paying for her to stay in the home.
And this will still be wrong.
Its an absolute insult that this is happening to them.
My mother had willed her estate to her church long before she became ill, but, I strongly believe that most other parents that have worked hard to have a house/savings have done so for the benefit of their children. They thought their children would benefit at some point from their hard work or frugality. What a joke.
So, as my mother has very little money (and she had no savings), and is in fairly good physical health, her money will run out fairly soon and she will probably have many years left to exist in the care home.
And then someone else who is self-funded will be paying for her to stay in the home.
And this will still be wrong.
Its an absolute insult that this is happening to them.
My mother had willed her estate to her church long before she became ill, but, I strongly believe that most other parents that have worked hard to have a house/savings have done so for the benefit of their children. They thought their children would benefit at some point from their hard work or frugality. What a joke.
It does seems morally wrong that a reduction in what council is prepared to pay ends up meaning an increase in self-funded fees. I guess the care homes have no alternative as they need sufficient income to maintain their resources. I'd say the fault lies with whoever is responsible for squeezing what the council can pay, not with the homes. But then if there is not enough money in the pot....... Its a hard problem isnt it - and I don't know what the answer is.
I'm sorry but if there is not enough money in the pot to care for the elderly, sick and disabled successive governments should not be sending billions in aid to countries who have their own space programmes and £50m a day to the European Union. They seem to find the money to pay for wars and supporting people who come to this country with no jobs. Sorry but it really makes be angry.
when we keep being told that there is not enough money to support people in need here.The government is at the root of this problem.
They are constantly finding money for help abroad in various guises.
The older generation counts for nothing in this country.
I used to worry that I might get a life threatening illness and leave my daughter too early.
Now I worry that I might develop dementia and leave her with a ton of problems, money worries and the horror of seeing me decline in such a dreadful way.
Not to mention that she would not benefit from what I have worked for.
They are constantly finding money for help abroad in various guises.
The older generation counts for nothing in this country.
I used to worry that I might get a life threatening illness and leave my daughter too early.
Now I worry that I might develop dementia and leave her with a ton of problems, money worries and the horror of seeing me decline in such a dreadful way.
Not to mention that she would not benefit from what I have worked for.
Unfortunately it is not just the older generation. I volunteer for a disabled children's charity one afternoon a week and the lives of those children and their poor frazzled parents could be made so much easier with a little bit of support at home a few hours a week and with some specialised equipment.
Last edited:
I agree, and I'm financially savvy enough to have structured my mum's finances in such a way now that she can stay in her very expensive care home forever and there won't ever be a worry about her being able to afford it. And there will be assets left over for us too (well, my sons mainly) to inherit, as my mother always wanted. It's possible. And I'm glad that she is self funding as this allowed me to choose absolutely the best CH for her without worrying about how to pay for it.
My main objection to the system is, I suppose, a moral one, that many will have done without throughout their lives to leave a financial legacy to help their children and/or grandchildren and might end up leaving little or nothing, because the system takes so much from them. I also passionately believe that those without assets must be taken care of in their time of need, so I don't know what the exact answer might be to this problem. I just instinctively feel that the whole thing could be fairer and that people shouldn't lose their life's savings or family homes because they've become ill in old age.
If you are unfortunate enough to have a house that finally sells for only £65k, rather than the £240k that you mention of your mothers estate in the quote above, and there will be lots of self-funders in this position (certainly in he area my mother lives-the North), then this is fact not fallacy-the money will very likely run out before you die. There will be nothing to leave for your family and you will be left with someone else paying for your care who probably has lived as you have and so the cycle goes on.
Last edited:
The letter from the care home head office has arrived this morning. It says,
Quote : 'At (name of company) we are, and remain, committed to providing affordable quality care for all our clients. With our current banking climate, rising energy costs, together with Local Authority payments not reflecting quality, we have to address our current fee levels. It is with regret that we will be raising the minimum fee across all our homes to...' etc.
Many people will read this letter and not pick up on the line 'Local Authority payments not reflecting quality'. It's not a very transparent phrase that they've chosen to use. If I'd not heard it from someone at HO myself, I may well have just fluffed over it too.
Our local newspaper are interested in covering it, and the local councillor will be speaking to me next week.
I had to ask for this information in writing, i'm wondering if anyone else has questioned to rise in fees at my mothers care home.
The last energy bill increase from them was April 2012 when my mothers fee went up by £20 pw.
Now its up £60 pw, and according to the letter, part of the increase covers energy bills again. I wonder what percentage of these rises go to where they should. I've no idea how I could find out how these increased fees are shared out.
Ah well, looks like i'm going to be stirring the pot. Not looking forward to it, but this need a little clarity via publicity.
Hi, I posted something similar about 2 weeks ago : self funding versus local authority fees, not checked back but someone on the forum replied telling me it was a bit like hotels having a cheap deal on a room and other holidayers paying more to subsidise this. I have been to citizens advice about it as well, and got quite a bit of information, sorry to say none would of been of any help, in fact she told me dad would be subsidising the other people (one of which hit him on his first day there!!) Council are not allowed to refuse funding based on "lack of money" so if they wont top the care home up because they no money, then that is illegal. It might be worth pursuing the council instead of the care home, just a thought, I`m in the same boat so if I get to know any more will post.
I am assuming that I'm not permitted to name the company that own my mothers care home on here?
Would someone be good enough to clarify this for me?
I've had some interesting and important news today via the local news reporter that is looking into this situation for me. When it's been fully investigated, and if it goes they way I think its going, I'd like to make other people aware of it.
Would someone be good enough to clarify this for me?
I've had some interesting and important news today via the local news reporter that is looking into this situation for me. When it's been fully investigated, and if it goes they way I think its going, I'd like to make other people aware of it.
