Anyone clued up on benefits? Think me mate is in cloud cuckoo land

ruggedtoast

They'll let him keep the assets from his mums house providing she doesnt go into care in the next few years afaik.

I will say that caring for an elderly relative is no picnic, and they can cross the line quite rapidly from ok, to needing proper residential care. If shes really that bad that she needs 24hr care he may well regret his decision.

This is where the whole system is nuts imo. Pensioners sitting on tons of property equity that younger people have to murder themselves financially to get a piece of, just so they can eventually pay £3500 a month for a couple to live in a bog standard care home staffed by minimum wage care assistants.

I sometimes wonder if the whole hpi thing isnt a magnificently devious ploy by the owners of care homes to make a killing.

dopester

There are 3 elderly people living in their own homes on my street who have long had nursing staff/care staff visit once in the early morning (varies between a 15 - 30 minutes stay by my timing), and same again in the evening. I don't know how much that costs - whether free via 'benefits', or perhaps a charge against the home. It must suit those wanting to remain in their own homes though, and their wives/husbands + children.. rather than paying £500 pw +

I know this is a serious discussion, but I really do think many of you have had your minds diseased by Labour as to all you can expect from the system + high ideals for standards of care.

Is he actually trained in nursing care? Lifting, bathing, preventing bed sores etc.?

Come off it, although I agree new carers can learn easily enough from better knowledge than available in the past. Also in this freak-show of a country, with so many people given generous housing benefit + JSA and whatever else... they should be made to do something for their money at a minimum, and help to reduce cost burdens on the state - perhaps by being visiting carers, with benefits withdrawn if not good standards.

Some of this thread.. you'd think at no point has the UK had to look after the elderly to a reasonable standard when they had less money/resources/welfare/benefits than today... although I will accept people are living to older ages.

I've just been having a look at care for the elderly in a range of other countries. Some people have to get by. Just like my great-gran had to be cared in her home by some of the 7 children she had - actually the duty fell mostly on two of her children - and occasional drop-in from doctor.

There was none of your Labour-headed nonsense about being trained to do general caring - although some modern day info can easily be learnt for improvements. In the past they got by as best they could, with the means they had. Not relying on magic government to provide free money, or having to sell house and pay fortunes per week for so-so care.

I agree caring can be tiring.. depending on the individual and their state of mind/health, but generally a person can offer a good standard of care to an elderly parent .. without being worn out by it all, and in attendance to their needs every second.

For certain I'll be looking after my own Mum, and ensuring she has a high standard of care in her old age... including nursing care, rather than sending her into a £500pw nursing/care-home. That's why she had an EPA done a few years ago (in advance of the change to Personal Welfare LPAs).. to give me authority, as she dreads the thought of going into one. If she wanted to go into one that would be fine too.. I'd sell her house/buy her out... but I'm confident I'll be able to provide higher standards of care - myself and outside help - within her own home, than any nursing/care home.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Lately there has been an increasing discussion lamenting the lack of care and respect children and young people in general are showing to the elderly. I don’t think this is exactly something new; the problem has been discussed in various degrees by every generation notably save one. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
During the golden age of Greece, which is still a model for the world, the Greeks regarded the care of the elderly which they called geroboskia as a sacred duty, the responsibility rested exclusively with the offspring. As a matter of fact, Greek law laid down severe penalties for offspring who omitted to discharge their obligation.

In Delphi, for instance, anyone who failed to look after her or his parents were liable to be put in irons and thrown in prison.

In Athens those who neglected either their parents or their grandparents were fined and partially deprived of their citizen rights. There were no public facilities for the aged - the very idea of an old peoples home would have been utterly alien to the Greeks.
Though estimating the life expectancy in the Greek world very considerably, it is likely that it was little more than half the level common in western society today. Yet despite the brevity of human life, three score and ten nonetheless considered the proper quote of years defining the elderly and old age.

In Athens a childless man had two options. He could adopt a male heir of adult years to whom he would leave the entirety of his estate. In return, the adopted son would look after him in old age, give him a proper burial and pay regular visits to his home.

A childless man’s second option was to buy a slave or two and train them specifically in how to care for the aged. In many instances, the slaves was also paid for his services and guaranteed a form of security by the family for the rest of his life.[/FONT]

continues.

ruggedtoast

I agree with you but I am often surprised by the shenanigans people will pull to try and get out of looking after elderly relatives.

Some of my family has just had a falling out over what is going to happen to 'nan's' money when she passes, but at the end of the day the bit of the family which is most likely to get it is the bit that has actually taken her in , not shoved her in a warden controlled block on her own.

dopester

Snooze wrote: »

His Old Dear is far from being a cabbage (horrible word but somehow appropriate). She understands stuff perfectly well but because of her stroke she finds it virtually impossible to communicate what she wants to say, either in verbal or written form although she is very slowly getting better, especially if she's talked to a lot to try to engage her in a conversation.

Pretty expensive gear tbh (£2.5K+ iirc) - but we drew on family contributions, and also got a charitable contribution towards buying a Lightwriter. In many instances it can go along way to improving a person's quality of life, allowing them to communicate.

Lightwriters® are small, robust, portable text-to-speech communication aids specially designed to meet the particular and changing needs of people with speech loss resulting from a wide range of acquired, progressive and congenital conditions.

http://www.toby-churchill.com/en/content/lightwriters-0

Or.. if trying to keep costs down.. maybe a laptop (in suitable padded protection to avoid breaking) or desktop + text-to-speech software.

ALIBOBSY

I don't understand from a benefit point of view why he is paying ANYTHING now. I mean if they were estranged the local authority would pay for the care and hold it against the value of her property until it sells (this is what happened with my gran).

If he is determined to look after her (well done that man) surely they sell up their house and pay off debts then move into mums with her-surely the equity release isn't repayable until either mum dies or the house is sold. I also assume mums house is bigger than theirs (based on price).
So they all live together in her house, OP's mate and family look after mum and save (no mortgage or rent to pay), they get the carer benefits, child benefit and tax credits, they will get a reduction in council tax if a memeber of the household is disabled (or at least they do in this area-in laws get 25% of because he is in a wheelchair despite no income based benefits).

When mum dies OP friend either pays off equity release or they sell up and pay it off then he gets the balance free and clear to buy a house for his family.
Mum gets family care, baby grows up knowing gran is valued, friend does his best for mum, and the state gets nothing from mums(and dads?) hard work saving and buying a house.

ali x

Bogof_Babe

Admittedly I am not informed medically about such things, but I had assumed that care of a stroke victim would be more demanding in a medical sense than care of someone elderly but not suffering from any recognised illness/disability.

Those quick to criticize people who don't invite an elderly relative to live with them are assuming that this is (a) practical, and (b) desirable (some elderly can be very tyrannical and demanding) to all parties. I don't think it is fair to expect one's partner to take in one's parent/s, especially if it will fall on the partner to do most of the looking after.

ruggedtoast

Yes but she owns the house. If she goes into residential care technically they can still take the property even if she transfers the deeds to her son.

They might not as it would involve making a family homeless, but then again they might. Especially when its Nasty Cameron in June not Bail Everyone Out Unless They Work for a Living Brown, now.

lemonjelly

Snooze wrote: »

As far as last paragraph goes, you couldn't be further from the truth actually. It's not about getting rich off the state and that certainly won't have even entered his head. He is a grafter and always has been. He just completely disagrees (like me) that you should have to sell all your assets that you've grafted hard for all your life to pay for your care. This is exactly what your taxes should cover you for and if the state refuses to provide good care for you because you have a bunch of assets then they should be sending you a refund cheque in the post for everything you've paid into the system for the past 47 years, or certainly a reasonable portion of it. I'm afraid that I'm quite White-Horsish on this as what he says is spot on : those that pay nothing in should get nothing out, or at least nothing more than the absolute basics. (I know you will disagree with this lemonjelly, so please don't take my comments as a slap in the face for your help as it's certainly not intended, it's just a subject I personally feel strongly about).

R

No offence taken, especially as clearly none was intended.
We are all entitled to hold perspectives & opinions, & debate their merits.

Snooze wrote: »

Right, so the money left over after buying a 'lesser' house could go against him then. How would it be viewed by those in power if you bought a bigger/better house and used up all the cash? Would they still pull faces and point fingers saying you could've managed with a smaller/lesser house in a worser area, or would they let it go and not count that as asset deprivation?

R

Probably yes. Thing is, the benefit authority (be it the DWP or the LA) would look at why that money had been spent. If there is no realistic reason for the bigger house, & it "co-incidentally" means there is no capital left, then it is a very real risk.

Problem with the deprivation rules, is that you can't predict the decision. Your mate could do the above, have no cash, & then be told he falls foul of the deprivation rules & would then be left with no funds & no support.

Attendance Allowance & Carers allowance are not means tested, so the deprivation rules don't apply to them - only to means tested benefits.

lemonjelly

fc123 wrote: »

Hi Rob, I read this this morning and was thinking about it today.

Most things got covered so I can only add that he maybe shouldn't change, commit, sell anything until the baby arrives into the world safe and well.

Horrid thing to have to write but childbirth still carries risk and I have had personal experience of this. Everything planned to the nth and then the delivery doesn't go how it should.

Also, is it his partners 1st? She will feel differenrtly about all sorts of things post birth...priorities alter. She may not want to return to work at all (assuming 1 wage is enough income) and may want to be the one who stays at home....but add on 24 hour care for a srtoke 'victim' and it will be full on...as others have said.

I have read most of the thread (but not all) and I would hope that there is a sensible system set up so that her house could be sold and the proceeds used to buy a family home for all of them...but I know little abvout these things.

OH's stepfather has a very ill father at the mo and they have been paying for 'home help' as he is incontinet etc and his mother can't cope as she is v old too. I think they have to pay £1000 per quarter for this.


Check out the 7 year rule...can't you gift your assets to your children as long as you die after 7 years?????

Some very well thought out points here FC123, & well worthy of consideration. It is important to look at this issue holistically - not just the issues around the care of the elderly lady, but also the costs & consequences of these. The birth issue is significant. Maternity leave can now last up to 52 weeks to give the family time to adjust.

Regarding the "7 year rule", afaik it isn't a strict rule, & different LA's have different policies on it. Most LA's became aware that people were transferring their homes into their kids names as they found out they needed care. This was to get around the deprivation rules, & therefore the LA would treat the people as having deprived themselves of capital, in order to access state help. The 7 years is an arbitrary thing, where an LA will believe that if the transfer occurred 7+ years ago, it was unlikely that this was to deprive onesself of capital.

HomeSaver2010 wrote: »

Hi Rob,

I have not read through all the responses but from what i have picked up. Your friend may not be entitled to Housing or council tax benefit, Working tax credit or Income Support as he has savings over the thresholds.

Hope this helps

Not true, as stated by another poster there is no capital limit for tax credits.

pipkin71 wrote: »

I honestly don't know if this applies to someone claiming attendance allowance, so the best place to ask is the benefits board, but, if someone claiming DLA has a room specifically for them, to meet their disabilities, then they can claim council tax benefit.

I'm not 100% sure, but have read that in those circumstances, the amount in the bank doesn't affect the amount of CTC claimed.

As I say though, I'm not 100%, so you would need to ask on the benefit board. It's just that I have this vague recollection of a house with a room specifically used by the disabled person entitles them to CTC.

Edited to add:

Have just found this on Derby's local council info site:

Question: I am disabled. Can I get a reduction in my council tax?


Answer: You may be able to have your Council Tax reduced if a disabled person is living in the property. To get a reduction the property must have one of these:

• A room, that is used mainly by the disabled person and is required for meeting their needs. For example, the treatment of an illness or condition. A downstairs living or sitting room used also as a bedroom no longer applies.
• An additional bathroom or kitchen that is required to meet the needs of the disabled person. This needs to be a full bathroom not just an additional toilet, or
• Adaptation for wheelchair access or use.

The reduced Council Tax is given by charging as if the property was in the next lower valuation band. For example, if the property is actually in band C, we charge the tax as band B. From 1 April 2000 homes in band A were also allowed a reduction.



So it says disabled person rather than someone claiming DLA, which, I assume would include someone claiming AA.

The above isn't council tax benefit, you can get discounts & exemptions if a room (other than a bathroom) is specifically for the use of a disabled person (in example, is set up for them for dialysis). The LA website should have a council tax page - I'd recommend having a look at all the exemptions.

One last thing, if the property requires alterations, it would be well worth looking into whether a disabled facilities grant is an option to meet those costs (eg for an adapted shower room/walk in shower, or stair lift). http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/DisabledPeople/HomeAndHousingOptions/YourHome/DG_4000642

treliac

dopester wrote: »

I agree caring can be tiring.. depending on the individual and their state of mind/health, but generally a person can offer a good standard of care to an elderly parent .. without being worn out by it all, and in attendance to their needs every second.

It can be a damn sight harder than tiring. Most elderly people want to retain their dignity and independence for as long as possible and, generally, to remain in their own homes.

By the time they need 'care' their health - physical and/or mental, their mobility, their continence, washing, dressing, medication and a whole host of other needs can have become distressing and extremely demanding. they may well need constant supervision for one or more reasons, e.g. people with dementia are often unsafe to be left alone, may present a risk to themselves or others and often develop dangerous and/or unpleasant behaviours.

People are living so much longer today, and are often still living when quality of life has deteriorated to a very low point. It's frequently not a case of looking after a nice, easy going, and undemanding older person - those people are not going to need to be cared for.