Elderly relative, care homes and selling houses...a complicated enquiry!

sunnyone

sunnyone wrote: »

But its not hers, her husband worked hard and payed for it at a time when women were stay at home mums (who had no right to property) with the sole intent that they both would pop there clogs and leave it too there kids but shes not willing to die when they want her too and without it costing the family money which they would begrudge wether she was a very lonely woman looking for attention to prove that she was alive or not.

edited because of bad grammer

Errata

sunnyone wrote: »

But its not hers, her husband worked hard and payed for it at a time when women were atay at home mothers with the intent that they both would pop there clogs and leave it too there kids but shes not willing to die without it costing the family money which they would begrudge wether she was a very lonely woman looking for attention to prove that she was alive or not.

How have you come to that conclusion ?

andyandflo

dmg24 wrote: »

It also applies to deprivation of capital when looking at care home funding.

To avoid the question arising - yes, but as in my post you will see that it has to be done, if within that period, in such a way that on the face of it, it had nothing to do with deprivation. The rules in that case are not cast in stone, it can be argued that the actions were legitimate open decisions, just that she needed care earlier than was thought.

But as I also said, do not delay, get it sorted today as tommorow could be too late. Let the arguments come at a later time. It is better to do something to avoid the loss of the asset than do nothing at all!

The family has nothing to lose but everything to gain - possibly.
Who on earth would want the governmnt in whatever guise, to take it from them if it could be avoided.
I cannot believe that nobody else feels this way. The government should pay for the care package, not resort to taking it from the rightful heirs.

The grandfather worked to pay for it, paid his taxes on those earnings and did something for the family's future. Why is it right that it should be taken from them without a fight?

Errata

The 7 year rule in that case is not cast in stone, it can be argued that the actions were legitimate open decisions, just that she needed care earlier than was thought.

Which 7 year rule are you referring to ?

Oldernotwiser

andyandflo wrote: »

I cannot believe that nobody else feels this way. The government should pay for the care package, not resort to taking it from the rightful heirs.

And where does the government get its money from but from other tax payers?

I'm perfectly happy to fund the care of someone with no assets but I'm !!!!!!ed if I want to pay for the care of someone who owns a house, just so her children (who have done nothing to deserve a windfall) should be able to receive an inheritance!

andyandflo

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

And where does the government get its money from but from other tax payers?

I'm perfectly happy to fund the care of someone with no assets but I'm !!!!!!ed if I want to pay for the care of someone who owns a house, just so her children (who have done nothing to deserve a windfall) should be able to receive an inheritance!

Well in that case I would suggest you enter Parliament as an MP with a manifesto to close each and every legal channel there is to stop the public arranging their affairs in such a way that it will legally reduce the amount that can be clawed back by the government.

I can't see you lasting very long - all your colleagues on both sides of the House and in the Upper Chamber would be looking for your 'blood'!! Seriously what planet do you come from? Avoidance is legal, Evasion is illegal.

Mind you I do have one objection, the MP's are allowed to claim for the professional legal and accountancy advice as an expense whereas the rest of us pay it out of our earnings!

andyandflo

Errata wrote: »

Which 7 year rule are you referring to ?

Sorry I'm getting confused now - posting changed, Thanks.

I mixed up the IH rules with Deprivation legislation relating to care funding.

Bennifred

sunnyone wrote: »

But its not hers, her husband worked hard and payed for it at a time when women were atay at home mothers with the intent that they both would pop there clogs and leave it too there kids but shes not willing to die without it costing the family money which they would begrudge wether she was a very lonely woman looking for attention to prove that she was alive or not.

It matters not what the husband's perceived intent was - the property is hers (according to the OP). Not the husband's, not her family's but HERS. So what happens to it should be up to her. I'm not suggesting that any decision should be made from a position of ignorance, but it should certainly be made in her best interest, and by her as she is mentally competent.

Killmark

I hope she doesn't see this thread, she could always leave the remainder of any inheritance to the dogs home or something

[Deleted User]

Thanks for all your feedback.

I do appreciate that this is a sensitive situation and - like I said - one I'm saddened to be caught up on. I did have another thread on this a while back so it might help to provide some background.

My nan is currently in hospital, being assessed. We (the family) have been told - as indeed we have been told on the 30 - 40 other times she has been in hospital this year - that there is nothing wrong with her either physically or mentally. She has been assessed by doctors, psychiatrists...the whole lot...and has indeed confessed that sometimes (frequently) she makes up illnesses to try and attract attention and get into hospital, as she loves being in hospital so much.

I stress again: the medical professional have found nothing wrong with her whatsoever: her actions are just a selfish attempt to draw attention to herself. But, she has been like this for most of her adult life: in and out of jeriatric hospital units, regularly having 'mishaps' along these lines:

She tells people she has cancer (she doesn't)
She suffers a 'fall' on average once every two weeks (paramedics have never found any injuries)
She complains of hallucinations/visions each week
She has even been mysteriously 'run over' by a parked car (no injuries)

To illustrate how bad it is, we (the family) are able to predict exactly when she will have a 'funny turn' because it will always coincide with a family occasion or event in which the spotlight is on someone else. To give you some examples: she had a mysterious fall during her son's wedding, causing her to be taken away by ambulance (doctors found no injuries). It's a bit like Munchausens - whenever she watches something on Casualty, she normally suffers from it the next day.

The problem is that my nan isn't a doctor and so sometimes invents illnesses that she physically can't have suffer.

A case in point is that her next door neighbour suffered from kidney stones a few years ago (male). The next day, paramedics were called out to my nan's because she had complained that she had passed a kidney stone whilst going for a 'number two', thereby illustrating that she didn't actually realise that kidney stones don't come out that way...

Whenever the paramedics arrive, one of the team enters her house and the other one walks down the road to hand my dad a discharge form which he has to sign to say that he acknowledges the paramedics have visited and have determined that nothing is wrong with my nan.

As this has been going on for many years, social services were brought in to intervene. Now, calls to 999 from my nan's phone get automatically re-routed away from the emergency services to a different call centre where they can be triaged to NHS Direct instead. As a consequence of this - sadly - my nan started having her 'trips and falls' outside of her home (she goes to a social community centre every Monday) where they can call an ambulance from a different telephone number (and therefore bypass the call diversion).

I fully appreciate that many of you will have loving relationships with your grandparents and I truly wish that my relationship was like that also. But unfortunately, that's not the case and I'm entitled to feel a degree of disappointment and, indeed, anger towards my nan for the time she wastes of those around her, not to mention the time of the emergency services that could be better placed serving those in genuine need.. As my parents live just a few doors away they visit her daily and she had an endless supply of help, love and support...but I have seen how my dad is moving towards breaking point.

When my grandad bought the house, he did so with a view to providing a step up for his kids, most of which had fallen on hard times. My parents are very hardworking (my dad does not qualify, and does not draw any benefits) but he is a builder and with the economic downturn has found it very hard to get any work - last year he earned less than his tax free allowance, for example. Whilst I'm not expecting anyone to say it's not his fault, he has no savings, no pension, no ISA and nothing in his bank account. My mum earns, but her income is eaten up by rent and other essential expenditure (she uses MSE, but not the forums...!).

Genuinely, all siblings have viewed the house as their only opportunity to set themselves up for retirement, which is what my grandad ultimately wanted. Coming from an era of conservatism though, it's very clear in my family that him and my nan never saw eye to eye and had there not been such a social stigma around it, I'm reasonably confident that things might have turned out differently in their relationship and he would have got what he wanted.

Now, wrapping all of this up and summing up, I appreciate that this is a very sad state of affairs - and I hope others take it as a lesson. I've got no problem being condemned by others, because I know the background to this story, but ignoring the moral arguments for a moment, I'd really appreciate some advice on behalf of my parents because we've come to a dead end.

Social Services have said that my nan is shortly going to be discharged from hospital, but that as soon as she phones for an ambulance again (making something up) they will immediately whisk her into care and there won't be any say in it. I have no idea on what grounds that will take place, but my parents are struggling to make any headway which is why they've asked me to investigate and help them understand the process better.

Rightly or wrongly, my understanding (from others on here and from direct gov) is that as my nan's house is worth over £23k she will be liable in full for the cost of her care and that this will accrue against the value of the property from 9 weeks after going into housing. But there may be a way that the property can be transferred to someone else as trustee to be held as a discretionary trust towards her as beneficiary. If anyone has any advice, it would be welcomed.

I should quickly reply to others who have asked for what my nan wants in all of this: the answer is - attention. My nan would LOVE to be in a home amongst ill people, almost as much as she would love to be in a hospital. Very very sad, given the overwhelming attention her family has provided her all her life.