how do you prevent losing your home due to costs of care homes

[Trisha4]

Just a thought which seems to fit here. I believe the following to be the case.
If one of a couple goes into a care home and the partner then sells the home the LA can take half of what the house sells for to pay care home fees. So if the house sells for 400K the partner will only have 200K with which to buy a new home. However, as everyone has said, if the partner remains in the original home, it can't be touched as long as the partner is alive. I hope that makes sense.


Sent from my iPad using Talking Point

 

[Alison N]

Just a thought which seems to fit here. I believe the following to be the case.
If one of a couple goes into a care home and the partner then sells the home the LA can take half of what the house sells for to pay care home fees. So if the house sells for 400K the partner will only have 200K with which to buy a new home. However, as everyone has said, if the partner remains in the original home, it can't be touched as long as the partner is alive. I hope that makes sense.


Sent from my iPad using Talking Point

Is this the case even though the property has already been disregarded by the LA?

 

[Pete R]

Just a thought which seems to fit here. I believe the following to be the case.
If one of a couple goes into a care home and the partner then sells the home the LA can take half of what the house sells for to pay care home fees. So if the house sells for 400K the partner will only have 200K with which to buy a new home. However, as everyone has said, if the partner remains in the original home, it can't be touched as long as the partner is alive. I hope that makes sense.

But there is an option for the person in care (and agreed by the LA) to allow some or all of the £200,000 to be used by the partner to help fund a new home.


Example of where deprivation has not occurred from Annexe E of the New Care Act:

"Max has moved into a care home and has a 50% interest in a property that continues to be occupied by his civil partner, David. The value of the property is disregarded whilst David lives there, but he decides to move to a smaller property that he can better manage and so sells their shared home to fund this.

At the time the property is sold, Max’s 50% share of the proceeds could be taken into
account in the financial assessment, but, in order to ensure that David is able to purchase the smaller property, Max makes part of his share of the proceeds from the sale available.

In such circumstance, it would not be reasonable to treat Max as having deprived himself of capital in order to reduce his care home charges."

 

[sleepless]

But there is an option for the person in care (and agreed by the LA) to allow some or all of the £200,000 to be used by the partner to help fund a new home.


Example of where deprivation has not occurred from Annexe E of the New Care Act:

"Max has moved into a care home and has a 50% interest in a property that continues to be occupied by his civil partner, David. The value of the property is disregarded whilst David lives there, but he decides to move to a smaller property that he can better manage and so sells their shared home to fund this.

At the time the property is sold, Max’s 50% share of the proceeds could be taken into
account in the financial assessment, but, in order to ensure that David is able to purchase the smaller property, Max makes part of his share of the proceeds from the sale available.

In such circumstance, it would not be reasonable to treat Max as having deprived himself of capital in order to reduce his care home charges."

Would there be a problem doing this if David was POA for Max?

 

[sleepless]

Also, it says Max can make 'part of his share' available, but I wonder who decides how much is allowable or not, presumably the LA? Do you suppose there is a formula for this, or could it be down to the discretion of an individual Finance Officer, ie. yet another postcode lottery?

Although I understand the reasons behind self-funding as it stands, it is still difficult to come to terms with having to try to plan for my future financial security as though our money doesn't belong to us.
As if the disease itself isn't enough of a life-changer!

 

[Pickles53]

Although I understand the reasons behind self-funding as it stands, it is still difficult to come to terms with having to try to plan for my future financial security as though our money doesn't belong to us.
!

I don't really see it that way. You are planning to use your money to pay for something you need which the state doesn't provide. We all have to spend our money on some things we would rather not and this is probably the biggest one.

We may feel that the state should fund all social care (I do) but that is only possible if we are willing to pay for it via taxation. I'd be fine with that if the extra tax was 'ring-fenced' so it couldn't be snaffled for other things.

 

[Pete R]

Would there be a problem doing this if David was POA for Max?

I do not believe so.

I could see a problem though if someone (maybe a family member) objected to the money not being used to say "upgrade" the care package instead.

 

[Pete R]

Also, it says Max can make 'part of his share' available, but I wonder who decides how much is allowable or not, presumably the LA? Do you suppose there is a formula for this, or could it be down to the discretion of an individual Finance Officer, ie. yet another postcode lottery?

I assume that it would be LA discretion,so yes a lottery

 

[Pickles53]

I assume that it would be LA discretion,so yes a lottery

It's probably far too logical, but I would like to think that the discretion would be based on local house prices for accommodation suitable for a single person? Might also query the reason for moving at all if not 'downsizing' to some extent?

 

[Trisha4]

Also, it says Max can make 'part of his share' available, but I wonder who decides how much is allowable or not, presumably the LA? Do you suppose there is a formula for this, or could it be down to the discretion of an individual Finance Officer, ie. yet another postcode lottery?

Although I understand the reasons behind self-funding as it stands, it is still difficult to come to terms with having to try to plan for my future financial security as though our money doesn't belong to us.
As if the disease itself isn't enough of a life-changer!

My understanding is that the whole thing is at the discretion of the LA. A friend who is a financial adviser told me in his experience the LA he deals with used to waive their rights to the half belonging to the person in care home. However they now claim the money (don't know if it is all of it) as their income has been squeezed and they need additional funds.


Sent from my iPad using Talking Point

 

[Trisha4]

It's probably far too logical, but I would like to think that the discretion would be based on local house prices for accommodation suitable for a single person? Might also query the reason for moving at all if not 'downsizing' to some extent?

I don't think downsizing necessarily means a property costing half the price of the original house. Finding an appropriate property meeting a range of needs can mean spending almost as much even though it might be smaller.


Sent from my iPad using Talking Point

 

[sleepless]

I don't really see it that way. You are planning to use your money to pay for something you need which the state doesn't provide. We all have to spend our money on some things we would rather not and this is probably the biggest one.

We may feel that the state should fund all social care (I do) but that is only possible if we are willing to pay for it via taxation. I'd be fine with that if the extra tax was 'ring-fenced' so it couldn't be snaffled for other things.

Yes, I am planning to use some money to pay for something the state doesn't provide, Pickles, but it's not care, not yet anyway!
I need to replace something quite expensive, and resent having to worry that down the line the way I have spent our money may be scrutinised and criticised, that's all.
I believe there should be no discrimination against people suffering from these diseases of the brain, and would not object to higher taxes to help fund the care, especially if the tax came from the wealthier ., and as you say, was ring-fenced'. We can but dream.

 

[Saffie]

Is this the case even though the property has already been disregarded by the LA?

To answer your question, Alison, yes it is the case if the person residing in the home decides to sell whilst the person in the Care/nursing home remains alive.
This is because half the proceeeds of the sale belong to that person of course so it is counted as capital meaning the latter's capital will rise above the £23,250 upper limit of LA supplement funding entitlement.

However the posts above refer to the possibility of the LA using their discretion to allow an imbalance of the distribution of the proceeds to allow for the purchase of a house if this proves difficult using only half the proceeds.
This isn't by any means guaranteed though.

Pete, haven't we just had this conversation?!