What can i spend my mum's money on?

Mojisola

imsi wrote: »

If I buy an expensive wheelchair for her days out, or bring the hairdresser in weekly instead of monthly, my mums quality of life improves but probably in a rather costly way.

I'm sure that both these examples would be okay but are they what your mother wants? It sounds a bit as if you want to spend the money as fast as possible so that she will be funded by the council as soon as possible. Why is it alright to spend her money on these things and not on her daily care?

Are you aware that the council will have a maximum amount per week that they will fund and, if this home charges above that, your mother may be asked to move or the family asked to find the difference?

It would be more prudent to use her money to provide a few extras but not to spend it recklessly.

Presumably she has a pension and, if she needs to go into a care home, should be entitled to AA. These will help to pay for some of the care.

Savvy_Sue

PennyForThem wrote: »

Might I point out that coucil tennants are within their rights to pass on their tenancy to named receipients - how does this differ from someone who owns their house except that their tenancy isn't taken into consideration when involving funding social care.

I think not always, and not automatically: I found this, so you'd have had to have lived with the person prior to their death, for at least 12 months if you weren't married to them.

Also, and I could be wrong about this, but I think if the tenancy has been passed on in this way once, it can't be passed on in that way again.

So if you own your home, you can leave it to whoever you like. If you're a tenant of a social landlord, someone may be able to 'inherit' from you, but it is not automatic, and it is restricted.

imsi wrote: »

If I buy an expensive wheelchair for her days out, or bring the hairdresser in weekly instead of monthly, my mums quality of life improves but probably in a rather costly way.

You're her attorney. As I understand it, you can spend her money on anything for her benefit. Wheelchair, definitely. Hairdresser, definitely. But in either case, you have to be ready to show to the Public Guardian that it was for your mother's benefit. That's why you can't suddenly start giving more generous birthday and Christmas presents on her behalf: it's her money and you are just looking after it for her.

Your job now may be to reassure your mother that all of you would far rather see her happy and well looked after for many more years than have a larger inheritance because she didn't last long in residential care.

pollypenny wrote: »

Where we had a real advantage over youngsters was in MIRAS.

Now you are making me feel old!

birkee

Errata wrote: »

I couldn't agree more. I'm also fed up with people not understanding they did nothing to earn a house that's now worth many multiples of what they paid for it, except sit in it.

What strange thought processes you have!

The fact that they worked, scrimped and scraped to buy a house has nothing to do with it?
They worked hard for their house, they didn't sit on their backsides and wait for the Council to give them one.

And as for the stupid comment about a house being worth many multiples of what they paid for it ..... thats financial ignorance. The only criteria is how many weeks average wages did it cost at the time, and how many weeks average wages is it worth now?
If it's sold, does it buy any more food with the money than you could buy when it was purchased?

What would change if they put all the finances back to the 1960's level? The same struggle to buy a house, just at a different value.
Money has NO value, at whatever level it's at, it's what you can do with it that gives it it's value. How many loaves of bread etc can it buy.

As houseowner's, they will have paid tax all their homeowning lives, to support people who are incapable of providing their own homes, in Council property. Is it unreasonable to expect the use of Council property themselves, when they need a care home?

Perhaps looked at from another angle.
The non self sufficient want money from you when you are in your own home, and they want the money from your property when you are old and need care.
Whereas, the non self sufficient give nothing when they are young, and get it all for free when they are old and need care.

If you don't take money from those that contribute the most, then there's every chance that the non paying hangers on, will lose their free care too.

My home is worth multiples of it's purchase price, but I can't spend it. ..... Errata indeed!

birkee

pollypenny wrote: »

Very succinctly put! I am fed up with people coming n and asking how their parent can stay in a home on our money, so they can pass on their 'hard earned' assets.

My assets were very hard earned, as was my pension and, while I am happy to help those in need, those to can afford to pay must pay.

And how about.. Those that can't afford to pay must go without?

You can be bloody minded from both directions, and just depend on a much reduced middle ground supporters.

Oldernotwiser

imsi wrote: »

I have missed out on the 6 week disregard through lack of information. Do I get extra credit from those of you on the moral high ground for sparing the council the cost? If I'd been clever enough to transfer assets years ago as many do would I have been wrong.
.

It seems that you already consider this to be your money and have done so for many years!

Your priorities are clear and your mother doesn't seem to be one of them!

Oldernotwiser

birkee wrote: »

What strange thought processes you have!

The fact that they worked, scrimped and scraped to buy a house has nothing to do with it?
They worked hard for their house, they didn't sit on their backsides and wait for the Council to give them one.
!

Most people work hard to provide their own home, whether it's by way of a mortgage or rent. Simply living in a property through a time of property inflation does not put that extra value down to the owner's hard work or thrift!

birkee

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Most people work hard to provide their own home, whether it's by way of a mortgage or rent. Simply living in a property through a time of property inflation does not put that extra value down to the owner's hard work or thrift!

You missed the point.
There is NO (approximate) increase in value. It can still be worth 200,000 loaves of bread at purchase price and at current value.

"Hard work and thrift?"
What else do you put home ownership down to? Luck?

Biggles

imsi wrote: »

The insurance premium for her care was more than double what her house is worth, which suggests to me that she is expected to live rather longer than her and my funds can support her.

I'm surprised there's such a large differential, though of course I don't know how much equity there is in her home.

Was the insurance quote for an Immediate Care Needs Annuity? And did you go through an IFA in order to get the best quote (the three firm in this market vary surprisingly in their premiums)?

pollypenny

monkeyspanner wrote: »

And they do pay. As self-funding care home residents they will usually pay substantially more for exactly the same services as council supported residents. Thus subsidising the council and hence reducing your council taxes.

Not sure about that, well in council run homes, anyway. When my father went into a residential home we were given the price before he went. He had the choice of being self-funding or council funded, signing the house over.

He chose self-funding, using his pensions.

If the home is a privately run one, I imagine that a council would negotiate a price reduction for regular use for more than one resident.

pollypenny

birkee wrote: »

And how about.. Those that can't afford to pay must go without?

You can be bloody minded from both directions, and just depend on a much reduced middle ground supporters.

Of course those that can't afford do not 'go without'! Well at the moment, but who knows what this 'caring ' government will do.

'From each according to his means, to each according to his needs' is a good starting principle.

Before anyone kicks off, I am not advocating communism. However, for democratic socialism to work it needs people to use the system fairly.