Cash savings and bennefits claims?

webtalk

dementia wrote: »

" The money will be going towards her care, surely this is what everyone would want, "

It is certainly what I want, But not what she wants. She wants the money to go to her "family" And sees this as just another case of her being penalised for working all of her life, buying a home and saving her money.

What if she spent the money on her house, say built a conservatory?

Sorry to to be blunt but if you have enduring/lasting power of attorney what your mother wants doesn't come into it.

You have a legal responsibility. And as you do not ahve dementia (I'm assuming) you wouldn't have a leg to stand on in the case of a fraud prosecution.

I don't know what would happen if she built a conservatory.

The rules are very clear - if one spends money to bring capital down in order to benefit from the public purse, then that is deprivation. Pure and simple.

House repairs would be okay. Sensible updating and disabled modifications as well. But certain expenditure will definitely be seen as deprivation. And the fraud people will be crawling all over you (even after she dies) if they get the slightest whiff of it.

And she would certainly be able to spend on a decent bed, one of those 'tip you out' electric chairs, etc.

If I were you I'd contact my local welfare rights for a definitive answer on the legal position. They tend to know the rules way better than anyone else - even the departments.

It is a pig of a situation. But look at it this way - while she has capital she has choices- even of care providers. Once she becomes dependent on the state those choices are seriously limited - as is the care she'd receive. Being old and dependent on the state for care and income is the pits.

viktory

dementia wrote: »

At what point is her House at risk?

Surely once she has used up any funds over the £2,000 limit her care becomes the responcibility of the state.

I have heard of people that have been refused benefits as the DWP believed that they deliberately deprived themselves of capital. Make no mistake - they have been refused means tested benefits even though they have no money left.

I would be very, very careful. What is being proposed is fraud. Sadly, this is becoming more and more frequent on this board.

[Deleted User]

dementia wrote: »

" The money will be going towards her care, surely this is what everyone would want, "

It is certainly what I want, But not what she wants. She wants the money to go to her "family" And sees this as just another case of her being penalised for working all of her life, buying a home and saving her money.

What if she spent the money on her house, say built a conservatory?

Anything that is done purely to get state help when it wasnt possible before doing it will be seen as purposely depriving of capital,and they will find out.

[Deleted User]

Snakeeyes21 wrote: »

it wouldnt matter if she spends it on her house, if she owns it she may be forced to sell it to pay for her care.
its not nice but if theres the funds avaliable to fund her care it has to be used

You`re confusing residential care with home care,they are not the same and home care doesnt involve the sale of property,if it did it wouldnt be called "home" care would it?

dementia

Thanks for all the replies / advice, etc.

Basically you have confirmed my "Gut" feelings. We'll use the money she has to provide care and make life as comfortable as possible, including some small house improvements and some purchases of more suitable furnature , etc.

I supose the longer we can stay away from the State dictating the care the better?

Again Thanks