• All threads and posts regarding Coronavirus COVID-19 can now be found in our new area specifically for Coronavirus COVID-19 discussion.

    You can directly access this area >here<.

Saving assets from care fees, grrrr...

Katrine

Registered User
Jan 20, 2011
2,839
England
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.
malengwa, on those grounds our 27 year old son, who has lived with us all his life, bar his uni years, would be able to claim a share in our property. :rolleyes:

I think you may be getting advice based on the potential assets that might be claimed in a divorce settlement. That is not relevant here. Your dad will not be required to surrender any of his own assets, including his house.
 

Pete R

Registered User
Jul 26, 2014
2,038
Staffs
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.
Your Dad's home is safe...Have a read of this Age UK Fact Sheet.....
http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/Factsheets/FS39_Paying_for_care_in_a_care_home_if_you_have_a_partner_fcs.pdf?dtrk=true
 

Zana

Registered User
May 12, 2016
185
My aunts MIL had AD and was living at home alone. While my aunt and uncle tried to do their best the other son (absent) was the eldest and refused to allow the sale of the house so that his mother could go into a care home.
He refused even though she was living in filth and eating rotten food. So my aunt and uncle unable to continue travelling 200 mile round trip each weekend came up with an idea.

Luckily the house was in a good area and very nice so they did a bit of tarting up and arranged for it to be privately rented to business people.

The rental income was enough to cover the NH fees long enough until the poor lady passed away.
The brother turned up for his inheirtence but my aunt and uncle havent spoken to him since.

His greed has now split an entire family.
 

canary

Registered User
Feb 25, 2014
11,646
South coast
Im glad that your mum was able to live out her days being cared for Zana, and that obviously worked very well for her.
I must say, though, that you have to do your sums very carefully. Most homes would not generate enough rental to cover CH fees.
 

lemonjuice

Registered User
Jun 15, 2016
1,534
England
Im glad that your mum was able to live out her days being cared for Zana, and that obviously worked very well for her.
I must say, though, that you have to do your sums very carefully. Most homes would not generate enough rental to cover CH fees.
I agree, you'd have to have a really good pension and live in a place where rentals are very high to earn enough just from those alone to pay for NH/CH fees.
My mother's several pensions plus AA, Nursing Contribution and rental on her bungalow only raise aprrx.a third of what she needs to pay out each month in fees.
 

oilovlam

Registered User
Aug 2, 2015
386
South East
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.
That was me and I meant it as a joke.....sort of!

The alternative is to take your relative on a holiday to another country and 'forget' to take them home with you. Some American people took their husband/father with dementia to somewhere in middle England and left him in a car park. The BBC traced them because he just about remembered his name....but it took 8 months and a lot of luck to find them.

Or the relatives who left their relative with dementia at A&E (hospital) and flew to Australia.

People make irrational decisions when they are desperate.....I think mum would like India...she likes a curry! (joke)
 

oilovlam

Registered User
Aug 2, 2015
386
South East
Someone has just started a new thread about a BBC radio 4 programme about care homes. Well worth a listen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08c2mlk#play

It seems that self-funders have to subsidise LA residents. I think £8000/year extra may have been mentioned. Therefore the government/LA is underfunding LA funded residents on purpose and the private residents are over paying to make up the difference. Sounds unfair to me.
 

Pickles53

Registered User
Feb 25, 2014
2,474
Radcliffe on Trent
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.
You're right that guarantees of good care aren't related to who owns the home, whether private or council. In many areas, including ours, there are no council-owned homes and haven't been for years. The CQC is the best independent quality assessment nationally, though local reputation (and your personal assessment when you visit) will often tell you more. Sadly as LA funds become tighter I fear that they will want the people they fund to be in the less expensive places and may compromise on quality standards. So lots of LA-funded residents is not necessarily a quality guarantee either. There are fantastic homes in both public and private sector as well as poor ones.
 

Saffie

Registered User
Mar 26, 2011
22,506
Near Southampton
You're right that guarantees of good care aren't related to who owns the home, whether private or council. In many areas, including ours, there are no council-owned homes and haven't been for years. The CQC is the best independent quality assessment nationally, though local reputation (and your personal assessment when you visit) will often tell you more. Sadly as LA funds become tighter I fear that they will want the people they fund to be in the less expensive places and may compromise on quality standards. So lots of LA-funded residents is not necessarily a quality guarantee either. There are fantastic homes in both public and private sector as well as poor ones.
I don't think I said that lots of LA funded residents is a guarantee of good quality in a home. Simply that expensive private ones are not either. The CQC at best takes snapshot views of homes and it was not responsible for highlighting the problems which caused the homes we have seen in the media to close. I have been interviewed by the a CQC inspector and the resulting report quoted comments supposedly made but me which were inaccurate. LAs already want the residents they fund to be in the less expensive homes but that doesn't translate as poorer quality which was the point I was making.
 

Pickles53

Registered User
Feb 25, 2014
2,474
Radcliffe on Trent
I don't think I said that lots of LA funded residents is a guarantee of good quality in a home. Simply that expensive private ones are not either. The CQC at best takes snapshot views of homes and it was not responsible for highlighting the problems which caused the homes we have seen in the media to close. I have been interviewed by the a CQC inspector and the resulting report quoted comments supposedly made but me which were inaccurate. LAs already want the residents they fund to be in the less expensive homes but that doesn't translate as poorer quality which was the point I was making.
Sorry, I may have misunderstood your comment. I thought you were saying that having LA funded residents would be a safeguard of quality as LA would remove those residents if things weren't up to scratch and that safeguard wouldn't be available if all residents were self-funders.

I know the CQC isn't perfect but it does at least cover all types of home. Actually in my area the county council has its own quality rating as well, which was a big help when I was choosing where my mum would live. There were homes in all price ranges which got the top rating, but few top rated dementia specialist homes which weren't above the average cost.

My husband volunteers for Healthwatch who have a statutory role to investigate complaints about health and social care alongside PALS in hospitals and various other bodies. They're not well known and not well-enough resourced, but interestingly he's currently involved in a programme of visits to care homes which have had poor CQC reports.
 
Last edited:

realist1234

Registered User
Oct 30, 2014
108
In today's paper, money section, yet another person wanting to know how to prevent a parent's house being sold to fund their care, since 'she had always intended to leave it to us'.
I do wonder what planet such people are on.
Glad to say the reply was pretty blunt - basically, you can't.
You miss the point. The whole system is wrong. Why should people get free treatment on the NHS for a physical disease, but suddenly have to pay for their care themselves because they develop another physical disease called Alzheimer's? My parents worked from the age of 14 to 65, and believed they would be able to leave their children an inheritance, because the taxes they have paid over 5 decades would pay for any care they needed in old age. Sadly not.
 

Selinacroft

Registered User
Oct 10, 2015
936
Well said Realist. Mum and Dad always scrimped and saved while they brought up children- never any luxuries like holidays. Now because Dad was so careful the savings are dwindling and the message the gov't are sending out to youngsters today is loud and clear,- spend now and have fun, make hay while the sun shines etc etc and taxpayer will pick up the bill when you have spent it all. Sorry I am running for cover now but there are 2 sides to everything.
 
Last edited:

Georgina63

Registered User
Aug 11, 2014
955
Well said realist1234. I never expected an inheritance from my parents, far from it and am grateful they have sufficient funds to cover care in a care home of our choosing. However, it does seem unjust that they worked hard and paid taxes all their lives, were very careful with money and saved well and although they did benefit from care at home at a subsidised rate for some time, the minute they walked into a care home (as they could no longer be supported living at home), they are paying full fees, and fees possibly greater than the rate paid for other residents funded by the local authority. Georgina
 

Pickles53

Registered User
Feb 25, 2014
2,474
Radcliffe on Trent
The problem goes back to the way the NHS was set up in 1948. There was always a distinction made between medical treatment and social care. I know of someone with MS. His medical care and treatment is covered by NHS but he pays for all his carers, adaptations to his home etc. The cost is significant now as he can barely move anything except some fingers and is incontinent.

It seems worse I think because there is relatively little medical treatment possible for some types of dementia and perhaps also because the social care needs are so great.
 
Last edited:

realist1234

Registered User
Oct 30, 2014
108
The problem goes back to the way the NHS was set up in 1948. There was always a distinction made between medical treatment and social care. I know of someone with MS. His medical care and treatment is covered by NHS but he pays for all his carers, adaptations to his home etc. The cost is significant now as he can barely move anything except some fingers and is incontinent.

It seems worse I think because there is relatively little medical treatment possible for some types of dementia and perhaps also because the social care needs are so great.

Can I assume he has applied for CHC and was rejected?
 

Amber_31

Registered User
Jun 29, 2016
79
A PWD who is without 'social care' as they require would soon slip into needing 'medical care', if they develop dehydration, starvation, accidental injury or infection, perhaps the same day, so in my view the distinction is wrong!

The system of having to self fund is discrimination against those with dementia. The welfare state with all its outlets provides several other non means tested 'social' benefits, such as universal education, state pension, legal aid for crown court litigation, and many more.

If dementia didn't steal from a person of their ability to understand, to complain and be listened to, to make argument, to be taken seriously by others, and, render their carers exhausted and depressed, I'm sure the system wouldn't be quite so unfair against dementia sufferers.
 

realist1234

Registered User
Oct 30, 2014
108
Can you rent the house out and fund care fees from the rent. Depends on house i suppose.

Yes but how many homes would get £700 - £1000 per week rent? Having said that, you could probably still do that but enter into a deferred payments scheme so that when the home is eventually sold, the local authority contribution would be repaid from the sale proceeds.
 

realist1234

Registered User
Oct 30, 2014
108
A PWD who is without 'social care' as they require would soon slip into needing 'medical care', if they develop dehydration, starvation, accidental injury or infection, perhaps the same day, so in my view the distinction is wrong!

The system of having to self fund is discrimination against those with dementia. The welfare state with all its outlets provides several other non means tested 'social' benefits, such as universal education, state pension, legal aid for crown court litigation, and many more.

If dementia didn't steal from a person of their ability to understand, to complain and be listened to, to make argument, to be taken seriously by others, and, render their carers exhausted and depressed, I'm sure the system wouldn't be quite so unfair against dementia sufferers.
Well said!
 

realist1234

Registered User
Oct 30, 2014
108
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
As you are co-owner they cannot force you to sell it. The LA would though I think expect the half-share of the rental income that belongs to your husband to go towards his care fees.