What can i spend my mum's money on?

Mrs_Money

pollypenny wrote: »

Whilst I agree that our houses are valued beyond our wildest dreams from when we bought them, it was a heck of a struggle to buy our first and third properties. I don't mean we own three!! The 15% mortgage rate nearly ruined us.

Posters talk about their careful parents never having smoked and had holidays. Well, neither did we, like many.

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

I agree, we too, struggled with the 15% rate! We didn't drink, smoke or even go out for years, let alone have a holiday!

Whilst I don't expect the tax payer to fund everyone else's care- it does occur to me that the next generation, with the difficulty of scraping together a deposit, or indeed getting a mortgage at all, may all have to rent and never be able to buy a property. House ownership may become much rarer in the future.

Then where will all the funding come from for their care when they need it?

pollypenny

If people have to work hard until they are 70 or so, they probably won't be living very long in retirement. It's a cunning plan, a la Blackadder!

Oldernotwiser

birkee wrote: »

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?

Given the number of people who had help from family with a deposit or happened to be in attractive council housing when RTB was introduced, then I would definitely put a lot of home ownership down to luck. In plenty of other cases, it took more hard work to pay rent than a mortgage as rents were higher than mortgage payments!

If you're sitting on 200K profit on the house you've lived in for 30 years good luck to you but don't fool yourself into thinking that you have earned this money by hard work rather than by luck, because you're not fooling anyone but yourself.

Angela_D_3

pollypenny wrote: »

If people have to work hard until they are 70 or so, they probably won't be living very long in retirement. It's a cunning plan, a la Blackadder!

Which how pensions are meant to work, my MIL has been a retired teacher for 30 years now and then has the nerve to moan about single mothers on benefits it's hilarious, she's had more in hand outs than single mums could ever dream of having spent most of her "career" on sick leave.

Errata

pollypenny wrote: »

If people have to work hard until they are 70 or so, they probably won't be living very long in retirement. It's a cunning plan, a la Blackadder!

But Bismarck thought of it first

WGG1848

My MIL has recently gone into a care home. AT 89 she has severe dementia following a stroke. she scored 1 out of 30 in the RUDAS test. She used to live in a granny flat attached to our house. She has a 44yr old son who has Downs and who was dependant on her. The granny flat was paid for out of funds when her house was sold in 1994. the balance of the funds was then invested by her for their future.
The council have come to do a financial assessment to determin who pays for the care home costs. Part of her investments included a With Profit Bond with an insurance company. The balance was in fixed term B/S Bonds.
The council have, and we accept that she has to fund the care home costs until her assets are down to £23,500
Her son does not come into the equation, had she been married or had a partner, part of her savings could have been ignored, but a dependant son with servere learning difficulties - NO.
The council wanted to know how much her house was sold for in 1994 and why did she take out the With Profit Bond.
We would like to know if some of her savings can legally be used to support her son in the granny flat, he feels very secure there, and wants his own independance, with supervision in place. In the past she has paid for his holidays. Can this continue without the authorities taking the view that this is avoidance?
We all make provision for our old age in different ways, like many others your mums greatest asset, apart from you, is her home. However annoying the system is, bottom line is we all try to save for this eventualty.
MIL was also generous in other ways, but none of this was recorded.
When one gives something, its because it gives pleasure, but the financial revue was clinical to the point of being extremly intrusive. We can't say why she spent her money as she did, it was hers to do with as she wished. Her greatest concern was her sons welfare. She is in no position to answer any questions, so the authorities will go into every financial transaction she has made since 1994 and what?
Will they make assumptions that she spent to avoid paying care home fees, like why did she take out the with profit bond. Her income and savings paid for the running costs of the flat, her son also paid his share.
We accept there has to be a system in place, but it is a fact that there are too many 'grey' areas, and the powers that be in the present climate appear to be ruthless in its enforcement.

Savvy_Sue

WGG, I don't know anything about RUDAS, but have you looked at the Continuing Health Care thread? If the dementia is severe, and especially if there are serious physical problems following the stroke, then you may find that MIL does not have to pay for her care after all. You will have to fight for proper assessment ...

Mojisola

WGG1848 wrote: »

Her son does not come into the equation, had she been married or had a partner, part of her savings could have been ignored, but a dependant son with servere learning difficulties - NO.

We would like to know if some of her savings can legally be used to support her son in the granny flat, he feels very secure there, and wants his own independance, with supervision in place.

He won't have a claim on her savings but he won't be thrown out of the flat. The value of your former home will be disregarded if it is occupied by some other specific people, one of which is a younger relative who is ‘incapacitated’. The term ‘incapacitated’ is not defined but should apply to someone receiving an incapacity benefit or disability benefit or who would fulfil the medical conditions to receive one of these benefits.

Is he claiming everything that he is entitled to?

Savvy_Sue

Mojisola wrote: »

He won't have a claim on her savings but he won't be thrown out of the flat. The value of your former home will be disregarded if it is occupied by some other specific people, one of which is a younger relative who is ‘incapacitated’. The term ‘incapacitated’ is not defined but should apply to someone receiving an incapacity benefit or disability benefit or who would fulfil the medical conditions to receive one of these benefits.

Is he claiming everything that he is entitled to?

Thanks for posting that M, I was aware of the age restriction, and thought there should be one for this kind of situation.

Just a thought for WGG, but were all the savings / investments in MIL's sole name? Or were any either in joint names, or in Power of Attorney accounts, or anything like that? ie able to be identified as her son's money which she administered on his behalf? If he IS claiming any benefits, did MIL act as his appointee, for example?

Sorry to throw more questions at you, but knowledge is power in your situation!

WGG1848

All the money was in her name. Trusts were discussed in the past, but not affected as being 'too complicated' as we remember her saying.
We are at present applying to the court of protection for P. of A.
The solicitor explained that we can administer her affairs 'just as she would do'. This clearly does not apply to spending her money for her sons benefit as this would be classed as avoidance and the authority could claw it back.
Her son gets most benefits but we are having his situation checked.
Social services are in touch and are aware of the situation.
MIL's health is at present OK but is very clearly confused. She recognises us but we cannot hold any conversation with her. The Care home is excellent, a real home from home and she appears very content.
One other thought comes to mind regarding the £23,500 that gets left. What can we do with it? If we invest it will any interest earned have to be paid to the local authority? or can we buy premium bonds and put them in trust for her son?