will the government help itself to nearly all your savings?

Prudent

dunstonh wrote:

It's something a solicitor can do and doesnt come under financial advice. Although I have been involved in a few cases where this has been done but my bit was on the investment side. So excuse my lack of correct terminology and may not be exactly spot on with the process.

My understanding is that the property is held tenants in common and on death of first spouse their half of the property is placed in trust with the surviving partner being allowed to remain in the property. Apparantly a council cannot force sale of the house to pay for care home charges when the property is not owned outright and is part in trust. Three councils (all central London) have attempted to go to court on this but have failed. So, this prevents the property being used to care home fees.

As I said,the specifics are done by the solicitors. So a solicitor would be in a better position to answer that with the exact terminology and process.

My sister is a single parent with two profoundly autistic children in their late teens. She has about eight residential properties in London, which she currently lets. My understanding is that when she retires she is turning most of them into a similar kind of trust for her children. That way the trust can specify the kind of care provision they want for the children. Otherwise the properties would simply be sold and the money spent on care fees. I think what my sister is concerned about is the quality of care. This is a way for a trust to control local authority choices. She says it is becoimng increasingly common with parents with significant amounts of money to pass on who have children who need care. Perhaps the same is true for the elderly?

Paul_Herring

cheerfulcat wrote:

The many people who have complained about it.

More on the Help the Aged site regarding choice of home for those who receive LA funding, for those who are interested.


"Apart from the restrictions mentioned above, you should be able to move to the home of your choice as long as:

• your chosen home has a place available;
• it is suitable for your assessed needs;
• the home will enter into a contract with the local authority under the authority's usual conditions; and
• it doesn't cost any more than the local authority would usually expect to pay for someone with your needs."

Ah right. Your initial comment seemed to indicate that they had absolutely no choice in the matter. The home my mum moved into actually fitted all the criteria you mentioned.

Dora_the_Explorer_5

I'm familiar with quite a number of residential and/or nursing homes for older people. The homes whose fees are significatly above the amount acceptable to local authorities and thus occupied by those with the means to pay them are far superior.
Those assessed as being able to fully pay or contribute to fees should do so. Local authorities use taxpayers - council tax payers - money to fund care home fees. Many retired people have savings/pension/wage which preclude them from claiming any benefit. Why should these taxpayers have to contribute through their council tax to the cost of caring for someone who is in a far better financial position than they are ?
Fortunately the direction of travel is towards supporting people in their own homes or in very supported sheltered accommodation, not shovelling them into a residential home, the majority of which I wouldn't put my dog in.

margaretclare

Dora_the_Explorer wrote:

Those assessed as being able to fully pay or contribute to fees should do so. Local authorities use taxpayers - council tax payers - money to fund care home fees. Many retired people have savings/pension/wage which preclude them from claiming any benefit. Why should these taxpayers have to contribute through their council tax to the cost of caring for someone who is in a far better financial position than they are?

The question 'why should....' is usually answered by 'my mum/dad/grandma/grandad worked hard all their lives, paid taxes, were told they'd get looked after "from cradle to grave", and they want to leave their house/their savings to children/grandchildren'. You even get a few words thrown in about 'they fought in wars...' Or it's the children/grandchildren who want this - it's their inheritance you see, and shouldn't be grabbed by the greedy council or gubbmint. This was the way the OP started this thread originally. (I am acting as devil's advocate here, you understand!)

Fortunately the direction of travel is towards supporting people in their own homes or in very supported sheltered accommodation, not shovelling them into a residential home, the majority of which I wouldn't put my dog in.

It's a while since I've been in one, I used to do agency shifts in some of them between 1992 and 1997. My main grievance would have been having to be dragged out of bed at 5 am!!! Having had a full working life when I used to have to get up early, out of the door and on the job sometimes for 7 am, it would NOT please me if I was in one of those homes and had to be 'got up' because 'we have to get a certain number of them up before the day staff come on'. So if you happened to be designated first to be 'got up', you'd be shoved on a commode, have a bit of a flannel round your face, dressed and sitting in front of the TV in a wheelchair until the day staff had arrived, had report and got breakfast ready. If any of the residents objected, the staff would laugh and say 'Oh, Ivy's in a bad mood today'.

My retirement years are for me to do as I please, to get up early or late if I want, not to suit some other people's convenience! Sometimes I wake early and go outside the back door listening to the dawn chorus, then go back to bed. Sometimes DH makes tea, brings it back to bed and we sit chatting for ages. We do what we want to do, and that freedom and choice, IMHO, would be the greatest loss if we were in care homes.

Margaret Clare