Selling your house to pay for care in panorama

marylee

Has anybody watched panorama where the social worker asked the family to sell the house to pay for care? I have always thought the socila worker is supposed to support the family. I find the programme very upsetting when you think most of us hard working citizen who have worked hard all our life to save and then had to sell the family home to pay for cares.

I do agree somebody has to pay but it does not seem fair to me there are some people who do not think anything about saving for the future and since they will have no assets, their care will be funded. Is there anything that could be done to minimize this? I am thinking seriously to change my will to tenants in common and leave my share to my two adult children, at least in my old age if I do need care, they can still inherit half of the proceeds of the house. I have been told, it might not be that simple esp if there is "a life interest clause in it". It's something I will have to think carefully and would be very interested if anybody else have thought about this? I am aware I will have to see a Solicitor about this but would like members input on this. Thanks

chugalug

Appalling situation. I just wanted to say though that just because someone hasnt a property or any money doesnt mean they didnt work hard all their lives. They may have hand a low paid job, an insecure income or like my mum been left widowed twice with 5 children to support. No chance of owning your own home in that situation. She worked hard though but has nothing material to show for it. Does this mean she doesnt deserve looking after in her old age now she's 80 and blind?? Looking at it a different way, she has no assets and will be funded but this also means she won't get the best care thats suitable for her but the cheapest social services are willing to fund.

Dora_the_Explorer_5

I guess the program would have upset a lot of people who weren't aware of the situation.
It does seem an unfair, anyone who needs more information/clarification should have a look at the Age Concern and Help the Aged websites.
At the moment the numbers of people whose care home fees are funded by their local authorites outweigh the numbers of self-funders and that fact coupled with the small percentage of older people who need residential care coupled with the move towards providing intensive care at home means we are not likely to see any change in charging policy any time soon.
As far as affordable care is concerned, local authorites are required to provide Best Value services. Private and local authority homes mostly charge the same, so the best value care will be provided by the home that is most suitable for someone - which will not necessarily be the most expensive one.

margaretclare

Hi

I didn't see the programme myself. Have kind of lost faith in 'Panorama' as a totally honest and unbiased piece of journalism, but that's another issue....

This type of question comes up time and again. Have a look at these threads:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=153597

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=157139

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=35941

I completely agree with chugalug. Just because someone retires on a very low income and hasn't managed to amass savings or buy property doesn't mean they haven't worked hard all their lives.

My mother, God bless her, if she was still alive she'd be 95, and she'd have to have her care provided for her. She worked damned hard from age 14 to 60 doing heavy cleaning jobs in other women's houses, low-paid, discriminated against because she was an unmarried mum, also had to take care of her disabled sister (actually, they took care of each other and brought me up too). She often said the best thing she ever did was to pay for her NI stamp - her employers were supposed to do that for her but didn't. I can see her now, carefully sticking her stamp on to her card each week and writing the date over it....she was better-off when she retired in 1970 than she'd ever been in all those years of working, being out early, cycling to work in the cold to give some idle cow her breakfast in bed. Sadly, she didn't live long to enjoy it - she died aged 63. But if she'd been able to save at all it would only have been in those years after 60! And even then, she'd have been saving for her grandkids and not for herself.

Aunty Margaret

Aperitif

I just want to add my support for the view that having very little late in life does not mean one hasn't worked hard. Saving is worth it because sadly, even now, money can buy advantage. In the present climate I would be quite happy for my elderly relatives to sell their properties/spend their savings on their own care as they age rather than feel they had to leave their assets to me - I'm a grown-up: I can take care of myself and the safety net of the state is there if I need it (and I hope feverently that it will always be so). That said, ideally we would all be happy to spread wealth more evenly and put more into the national pot generally, then everyone could have free, high-quality care as they need it... but that sounds suspiciously like a socialist utopia, so I'll take my mad dreams away with me...

Dora_the_Explorer_5

I can take care of myself and the safety net of the state is there if I need it

Having just received notification of my SRP increase it looks like the safety net has left the building :eek:

exil

Yes, Panorama seem to think that being balanced means alternating left-wing attacks on the govt with right-wing attacks on the govt.

In this case - there are points to be made on both sides. If you have reached the stage where you need to go into a home, and you don't have enough income from pensions, annuities etc to pay for it, then something needs to happen. Either your assets are sold, or the state has to pay for it , or an insurance company pays for it (or, perhaps, your relatives pay for it? wonder why this is never suggested), or a combination of those options. Unfortunately insurance seems not to work in this situation, the relevant policies are not popular.

Residential care costs, I believe, about 25k a year. This is far more than the average pensioners' income. There is almost always a gap that needs to be filled by the local authority. Maybe this should be made non-means-tested, so that assets don't have to be sold. And this is where the debate is.

If it's non-means-tested, an old lady who owns a gigantic mansion will be able to keep it to pass on in a will, and still, in effect, claim benefits from the state. If it stays means-tested, then someone with a little flat will have to sell it, which may seem a little harsh.

Basically, changing the rules would cost a lot - and to the benefit of people who
are well off in material terms (that is - those who expect to inherit - not the old people concerned, who no longer need the house concerned).

As with the current anti-IHT campaign, there is a groundswell of opinion agitating for
the right to leave large amounts of cash or assets to relatives on death. OK, people have the right to that opinion, but such measures cost money, and there are more pressing issues of pensioner poverty to deal with first, in my opinion.

chugalug

One really important aspect of this debate that hasnt yet been mentioned - the generation who now are having to sell their properties to pay for care are those who were promised they would be looked after 'from cradle to grave'. They paid their dues on the understanding that when they needed help they would be given it. Maggie Thatcher changed all that and Blair is carrying it on with a vengeance. Its different for the following generations cos we know what the score is. In effect these people have had the rug pulled out from under them at their most vulnerable. Whats worse is that it seems as though doctors, consultants and social workers are doing the govts dirty work for them.

Dora_the_Explorer_5

Well - yes, both right and wrong. It didn't take too long before it was discovered the nhs couldn't fund free specs for all those in need, so the signs were there that government promises weren't going to be kept. Both the medical and social care professions must comply with government policy, and we vote for the government so we shouldn't shoot the messengers.
Times change as well, only 25 years ago families mostly looked after their physically and mentally frail older people and if this wasn't possible they were shuffled off to back wards in general or psychiatric hospitals.
New solutions have to be found, you can't put new wine in old bottles. The good news is that as primary health and social care improves increasingly more older people will be able to live at home with their health conditions supported.

margaretclare

chugalug wrote:

One really important aspect of this debate that hasnt yet been mentioned - the generation who now are having to sell their properties to pay for care are those who were promised they would be looked after 'from cradle to grave'. They paid their dues on the understanding that when they needed help they would be given it. Maggie Thatcher changed all that and Blair is carrying it on with a vengeance. Its different for the following generations cos we know what the score is. In effect these people have had the rug pulled out from under them at their most vulnerable. Whats worse is that it seems as though doctors, consultants and social workers are doing the govts dirty work for them.

I'm 70 and I remember this 'cradle to grave' undertaking. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think I ever believed it. It was a good soundbite at the time! About as useful as the undertaking for 'a land fit for heroes to live in' at the end of World War One. Another couple of points to remember: in the late 1940s/1950s life expectancy hadn't improved to the extent it is now - people were still dying of e.g.TB, polio and other illnesses which we now never hear of (or only in third world countries). And also, fewer people owned their own homes, the new council estates were nice places to live which were sought-after, rather than the 'sinks' many are now. It was never imagined that, even if people did own their home, the prices would be what they are now. A house was thought of as somewhere to live, not as 'equity'. Certainly fewer people thought of leaving an 'inheritance' behind, and fewer of us expected one.

One of the earliest things to go were free prescriptions and free dental care - I believe that Aneurin Bevan, the architect of the NHS, resigned over this. I've just been for a dental check-up, X-ray and then treatment next week - all that is going to cost me £155.00 (which I can claim back from HSA, thank goodness!) It never occurred to me to look for an NHS dentist - they're few and far between.

Aunty Margaret

lynzpower

I work in older peoples social services, arranging home care, meals on wheels that kind of thing.

I am really mixed about this, being under 30 and with no pension yet :eek:

One, if someone ( where we work in any case- I dont know if this is legal or procedural) someone must have less than 20k in savings before we charge them for services. IMHO, I think 20k is a hell of a lot of money, and I srtuggle to think of any ofther government provision that says, you can have this service when you have less than 20k. Income supprt, JSA. housing benefit etc, wouldnt pay out ANYTHING if you have savings over about 200 quid. And part of me goes, you know what fair enough.

two) thinking about meals on wheels or other home care services. The savvy consumer ( or a savvy close relative) can save themselves money by getting direct payments and employing someone to do the homecare jobs direct. Where I work its £8 per hour for cleaning, but you can get a student or part time neighbour or someone to do it for the minimum wage ( as thats al the agency staff end up with anyway out of the whole she-bang) Additinoally meals on wheels with us is 3.95 if the client buys direct from our provider, 3.50 if they get it through us. Im sorry, but you can get a nice M&S meal for that, much more nutritionally balanced and better value for money. Lots of meals on wheels are delivered frozen in any case. We charge 8-9 PH for someone to do shopping with the list- again you could pay a neighbour or a teenager you trust to do those things. I do spread the MSE message where I can to old folk and make suggestions for them to go private wherever they can.

I feel between a rock and a hard placewith it as many of my clients have been living in a 350,000 ( far too big for thier needs too and expensive to run) home but then are under the 20k threshold. What do you have to do at working age when you cant afford to live, you sell your assets and pay what you can. I think it unfortunate that the cradle to grave mission was never achievable with an ageing population ( which was bound to happen with a creation of NHS!) but people believe that they are "entitled" , its very difficult to decide where Im at TBH.

Of course being a "recipient" can be disempowering, but i reckon enough thinking about it through the working life, get the MSE tips under your belt and stash a bit away can make retirement and needing support cheaper when it can be.