Protecting life savings

mattih5

Hi,

I need some advice.

A member of the family recently suffered a stroke which has turned out to be serious and involves moving this particular person to a home in order to provide total care.

The person in question owns her own property and has a substantial amount of money wrapped up in her account.

However, we (family) would like to protect this finance as we have heard of Social Services being able to check bank records and potentially take this money or the home in order to fund the care.

We are worried all the funds will be swallowed up that this person has managed to accumulate over their life.

Is their any way of being able to protect both the savings and property from being swallowed up?

Apparently the SS check bank account records so we are unsure of how to 'hide' or 'protect' this money. Also, the house, could it be signed over? The only issue is is that a meeting is due to occur with the SS in 3 weeks time. I have power of attorney if this helps in any way.

Just an idea but it is my 50th birthday soon, would it be worth stating the transaction as a LARGE birthday present?

Thankyou in advance,

jenniferpa

There are various points about this post that I want to raise. Firstly, I'd better say upfront that I'm in a similar position (post stroke elderly parent) so my views are coloured by my recent experiences. Firstly, there is no legal way to avoid spending down the savings (assuming there's no spouse involved). Whether there should be or not is a matter of opinion. If you choose to attempt to hide the patient's assets, you will a) almost certainly be found out and b) be acting illegally. Even if you could, have you ever dealt with Social services? You might not find the placements available acceptable.

The next point is re the power of attorney. Is this an enduring POA, because if it isn't, and if the patient is no longer mentally capable, it's not worth the paper that it's written on.

Regarding gifting. The maximum a person can give is £3000 total per year (unless there's a wedding involved). Even then, if the person is not mentally capable, you could get into serious difficulties here.

If you want to try to hold on to some of the savings you might look at immediate needs annuities. It's the one time that poor health can work to your advantage. It's a gamble of course, since you've paid out the money upfront, and if the patient dies sooner than expected you've lost that money. Personally, I feel a combination of both approaches might be wise, but that's just an opinion.

Jennifer

margaretclare

Hi mattih

Why do you want to 'protect' your relative's savings? From whom do you want to protect it?

Have a look at the previous thread about the Panorama programme. This type of question comes up time and time again in numerous threads - see http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=153597.

Who do you suppose is going to fund your relative's care if he or she doesn't fund it from savings or other assets? Are you willing to fund it from your own resources? Or do you expect the taxpayer - that's you and me - to meet the bill?

Aunty Margaret

loulou41

"Protect relative's savings", I can fully understand what mattih wants to do. I do not think the system is fair, this care should be free for the elderly who needs it. I do agree with you, margaretclare that the money must be funded from the taxpayer you and me. What I do not agree is some people spend and spend without ever thinking of saving and gets everything free because they have got no assets when they are assessed. I do not mean those people who are on low income who cannot save. I, e.g have worked very hard, I could spend my money on a luxurious holiday but I want to leave a little something for my children and I do not think it is fair that in my old age I will be means tested. As it is now, I have started to dispose of my assets gradually.

jenniferpa

loulou41 wrote:

What I do not agree is some people spend and spend without ever thinking of saving and gets everything free because they have got no assets when they are assessed.

You might want to do a little research into what is available in your local area for "free". The care is often no more than adequate. I'm not saying that self-payers have better care , but that they have more options. Personally, I wouldn't care to be put into the situation where I was simply given £16 in pocket money each week, which is the situation if you are funded. There is definitely a downside to free care.

Jennifer

shelly

I'm sorry but I think my thoughts are going to offend you but you asked for advice so here goes......


I have to ask.....Why not use this persons money to give them the best possible care they need at this time? If I got ill and had lots of money I'd want it to go on helping me and making my quality of life better and more comfortable. Thats what saving is all about.....looking after yourself should you need it IMO. I've seen firsthand a stroke victim and I know that if your relative needs total care then they aren't going to be able to use their money on a day to day basis so why shouldn't it be used to give them the best care they can get rather than be left to other people to benefit from?

margaretclare

shelly wrote:

I'm sorry but I think my thoughts are going to offend you but you asked for advice so here goes......

I have to ask.....Why not use this persons money to give them the best possible care they need at this time? If I got ill and had lots of money I'd want it to go on helping me and making my quality of life better and more comfortable. Thats what saving is all about.....looking after yourself should you need it IMO. I've seen firsthand a stroke victim and I know that if your relative needs total care then they aren't going to be able to use their money on a day to day basis so why shouldn't it be used to give them the best care they can get rather than be left to other people to benefit from?

I completely agree with you, shelly.

The whole thrust of the original post made me seethe. 'Protecting' a person's savings, assets, whatever - from whom/what, and for what purpose?

Nothing is 'free'. Currently there's ongoing publicity in my local area about the much-trumpeted 'free' bus travel for all over-60s from April. There have been queues round the block in one town - people who may never use a bus, may not have a bus service to use - are all rushing to get this 'freebie' just because it's free. Well, it may be free to them, but it appears that each one costs the council a set fee which has to be paid to the bus companies, even if the bus companies don't actually run a service near the people's homes! I'm so disgusted by this, I'm returning my bus pass. I've had it for 10 years and have used it maybe 5 times, yet every year it has cost the council money. I don't want it. I'd rather pay my way.

To return to the subject being discussed, yes, as shelly says, I'd much rather whatever I have is used for me, for my benefit, not for family members who may regard it as their inheritance. They can go out and earn their own inheritance!!

Aunty Margaret

shelly

margaretclare wrote:

I completely agree with you, shelly.

The whole thrust of the original post made me seethe. 'Protecting' a person's savings, assets, whatever - from whom/what, and for what purpose?

Nothing is 'free'. Currently there's ongoing publicity in my local area about the much-trumpeted 'free' bus travel for all over-60s from April. There have been queues round the block in one town - people who may never use a bus, may not have a bus service to use - are all rushing to get this 'freebie' just because it's free. Well, it may be free to them, but it appears that each one costs the council a set fee which has to be paid to the bus companies, even if the bus companies don't actually run a service near the people's homes! I'm so disgusted by this, I'm returning my bus pass. I've had it for 10 years and have used it maybe 5 times, yet every year it has cost the council money. I don't want it. I'd rather pay my way.

To return to the subject being discussed, yes, as shelly says, I'd much rather whatever I have is used for me, for my benefit, not for family members who may regard it as their inheritance. They can go out and earn their own inheritance!!

Aunty Margaret

Thanks.....I wanted to say exactly what you have in your last paragraph but couldn't think of phrasing it as nice as you have Only reason I can see for protecting this persons money is for the benefit and gain of those who want it protecting.