Stroke victim - Cost of care home

Neversaynever_2

The husband of a good friend of mine has recently had a major stroke which has left him physically able but mentally like someone with dementia. He is able to get about but has no idea where he is, who anyone is, or what he is doing. He is not able to look after himself. The doctor has suggested that he would be best in secure accomodation when he leaves hospital. Due to the nature of the stroke he cannot be treated. As we understand it, he will be handed over, as it were, to social services.

My question is simple. Can my friend move their savings out of joint accounts and put them elsewhere in her own name in order to avoid having it taken away to fund the cost of the care home?

Also is it possible to give the money away to relatives for safekeeping?

Ted_Hutchinson

The issue is quite complex so you'd be best advised to print off the following factsheets for her to consider in particular FS40.

Local authority charging procedures for care homes - FS10

Treatment of the former home as capital for people in care homes - FS38

Paying for care in a care home if you have a partner - FS39

Transfer of assets and paying for care in a care home - FS40

It may also be worth investigating this site your right to 100% NHS funded Continuing Care under UK law

margaretclare

Neversaynever wrote:

My question is simple. Can my friend move their savings out of joint accounts and put them elsewhere in her own name in order to avoid having it taken away to fund the cost of the care home?

First simple answer: either holder of a joint account can empty the account and put money elsewhere - this has been done in numerous marriage break-ups!!!

Also is it possible to give the money away to relatives for safekeeping?

Well, you'd have to trust the relatives very much, wouldn't you???

What your friend should do is to investigate the possibility of her husband being admitted to an EMI unit. This happened to some good friends of ours at church - the husband became demented as a result of repeated strokes. They had no money anyway - been missionaries for years! - but he was in a new, purpose-built EMI unit run by the NHS so no question of payment.

This is factual information. The following is the way I see things:

My late husband, who was on a downward spiral of cardiovascular disease from age 38 to his death 20 years later, had started suffering minor strokes. These are cumulative, and if he had survived he would have become demented just like our friend at church. I could never have considered moving money out of accounts to 'hide' it, I would not have cared what I spent on giving him whatever he needed to make his life more comfortable. Fortunately (for him) he died before any such scenario happened. The same would apply to my second husband if (God forbid) any such thing happened to him. I would spend my last penny on giving him the best I could afford. I am appalled by the callous way you write about moving money, entrusting it to relatives, to avoid funding a care home. If your friend's husband needs a care home, who do you think is going to fund it?

I would suggest that your friend needs to find out a lot more about the possibilities for her husband before immediately thinking of emptying their joint account and putting it offshore somewhere. You mention 'a secure unit' - well, the average care home is not a secure unit, because it's meant to be a 'home'.

This is a terrible scenario for a man who was - presumably - hale and hearty beforehand, I have seen its effects at close hand and I have been moved by compassion and sympathy, not by 'where can I hide the money'?

Sorry if this offends. But your post was in such bald and unfeeling terms, I can't help it.

Margaret

jobbingmusician

Please have a look on https://www.differentstrokes.co.uk as well - you can download leaflets on a range of topics, including possible sources of funding, and how you go about contacting social services etc.

Also, if his stroke is very recent, it may be that he will recover some cognitive function. I don't want to give false hope, but how people are 6 weeks or 6 months after stroke is very often not the same as how they are eventually, especially if your friend's husband is a younger person. Doctors often say there will be no further recovery after 6 months, and THEY ARE WRONG - ask Different Strokes!

Neversaynever_2

Thanks for the info. #3 - lecture not necessary. Situation is desparate enough. Before you pontificate again be aware that you are not in posession of all the facts and details. Just the facts next time eh?

margaretclare

Neversaynever wrote:

Thanks for the info. #3 - lecture not necessary. Situation is desparate enough. Before you pontificate again be aware that you are not in posession of all the facts and details. Just the facts next time eh?

I may not be in possession of all the details in your friends' particular case. Neither are you in possession of facts about the agony I went through in the last few years of my late husband's life, and how well I knew what the scenario was for him, so that when he died very suddenly, on his feet, my grieving was mitigated by the thought that it was indeed a happy release, he was spared what would have been, to him, a worse fate.

You speak of your friend's husband in a very callous way, writing about moving money out of joint accounts and giving it to relatives 'for safekeeping' - to avoid it being taken away to pay for his care. If he goes into an EMI unit under the NHS there will be no question of payment. Anywhere else, and I repeat - who do you suppose will pay for his care? I was willing to pay for any care my late husband required, and I am willing to pay for any care my present husband may require, as he is for me. Do you think I should pay for your friend's care too, if his wife is unwilling to?

Margaret

Neversaynever_2

The reason I asked the questions on behalf of my friend was to shield her from posts like this. In answer to your question about who should pay, I think that someone who has contributed to the state all their working life is entitled to something back at their time of need. The desire for information is based on my friends panic about her situation long term. She is having to make many decisions whilst still in shock. All that is required at this point is information. In all likelihood it will not be acted upon. It is no surprise to me that someone obviously connected to the church is the only one who decided to stand in judgement of someone else. I kept to the 'bald' facts of the situation as the details are not mine to air over the internet. You are obviously too emotionally involved in the subject and perhaps you should not have replied to my post.

seven-day-weekend

I think all Margaret Clare is trying to say is that it would be best if the money was used to pay for his care, rather than rely on the state and not have so much choice.

In answer to one of your other questions, I think if money is 'given away' to avoid care home fees, it is classed as deliberate deprivation of capital and his case will be treated as though the money were still there.

If he's got the capital, and it is found he has to fund his own care, he will have to pay until the capital gets down to (I think) £16000.

If he needs fulltime nursing care, then it will probably be funded by the NHS.

margaretclare

Thanks to seven-day-weekend for understanding exactly what I was trying to say. And in response to the OP who thinks I have been 'too emotionally involved', yes, you're right, I have been very emotionally involved, not only in my first marriage but seeing at close hands friends and even seeing people in a professional capacity when I was a practising nurse. It's only someone who has 'been there' who can really empathise. Yes, I do understand the panic this poor woman is in - been there! - but I repeat, my first thought was not how to squirrel away money but how to get the best care possible. I have seen the NHS EMI (elderly mentally infirm) unit that we have locally and it's excellent, also, under the NHS, there is no question of payment. My only gripe about it would be that it's virtually impossible to get to without your own transport - a long walk from the nearest bus stop - and that is how I saw it: our friend doesn't drive so to visit her husband (who didn't know who she was) she was normally taken there by her brother. I took her on one occasion when her brother was away.

About having contributed to the state all their working life, well, my DH and I are both 71, have paid taxes since we were 16, and we continue to pay taxes. We'll no doubt be paying taxes till we die! Again, about contributing all our working - and non-working - lives, DH has very recently had some very expensive knee replacement surgery. I've had revisions of hip replacement. All very high-tech and therefore very costly, so we do feel we've 'had something back for all that we've put in'.

Seven-day-weekend is right, there is something called 'deliberate deprivation of assets' and the links that Ted gave provide factual information about all those implications.

I don't see that my membership of a church has anything to do with the argument in any way shape or form. My opinions are my own and usually based on experience.

Margaret