My Gran and Her Care Home....

jamesd

0james0, yes, investment is one way, quite likely a good one for the bulk of it. An immediate needs annuity could provide some protection for the long life possibility with some of her capital, though people tend not to live for a lot of years once they reach the point of needing full time care; depends on the reason and person, of course. It's also worth considering whether the prospective beneficiaries of her estate might want to pay ongoing sums to get a larger eventual inheritance.

Trustnet will give you a list of funds in yield order that should provide some useful options, though do watch out for the capital value volatility of some of them.

You'll already know that some mortgage lenders will allow mortgage loans to family members for case like this even if they aren't living in the property. That's an option that may avoid sale of the home to a third party if one of the beneficiaries eventually wants to live there. It may be les distressing than an outright sale to a stranger now.

sammyjammy

0james0 wrote: »

Appreciate all the help, it's a shame we are going to have to do things so honestly!

Hmm remind me never to get mortgage advice from you :mad:

le_loup

jamesd wrote: »

though people tend not to live for a lot of years once they reach the point of needing full time care;

I'm not sure that's right.
In my MILs case:

If she falls there is someone to notice.
She can't leave the gas on.
She can't slip on the ice in the garden
She won't scald herself
She won't slip and break her leg in the bath
She will not refreeze unfrozen food
She can't accidentally overdose
She will take her medicine
She cannot get run over whilst aimlessly crossing the road
... or a host of other dangers she faced in her house unsupervised.

Loughton_Monkey

0james0 wrote: »

she is going to be forced to sell her house to keep the repayments.

You have my 100% sympathy for this situation.

But I get increasingly 'agitated' by an over-emphasis on a very emotive expression like the above.

I am convinced that a lot of people 'believe' that just because affluent granny has to go into a home, some big bad council wolf comes in just like a bailiff and sells the home and steals all the money.

Just take a step back and look at the [sad, perhaps] reality as it is.

Your Granny has to go into a home. She has some assets behind her, as a consequence of which she fails means testing. So the care home must be paid.

That's the situation.

Now as a family, please do the obvious and sit round a table and decide how it's going to be paid. Yes. One option is to sell the house. If that's the best option all round, then do it. Nobody is forcing you. They are just going to force you to pay in a cheque for £2,500 every month.

If you believe the house is a good asset and likely to increase, then keep it, rent it out, chip in a few quid each from around the future heirs, and pay the care home. If you think it's better to sell it, then sell it in your own time and at your own pace. If you just want time to see if it appreciates, then again, chip in amongst the family to pay the care home, and set up personal 'debts' against the estate for when the house finally gets sold.

But there is enough money somewhere, somehow, to pay the care home fees. Sorry, but that's the rule. She has to pay. Just decide how you are going to do it. Don't keep thrashing around for non-existant "avoidance schemes" that are going to drive a bus through the current law.

le_loup

It is amazing how many people save for a rainy day and when it rains the loving family want to take the umbrella away.

0james0

Appreciate all the advice, it's all (well mostly) very valid and helpful.

It is what it is, unavoidable and unfortunate. Its a sad situation for her to be in, I can imagine how it would feel to watch your lifes savings and hard work get sucked away.

I couldn't care less if I got no money, money tears families apart in situations like this, other people are welcome to it, I'll do what's best for my gran, if I could have found a way to help her protect her assets I would have. Not for my sake, but for hers. How being curious if there are any loopholes or rules that can be bent has any bearing on the quality of any mortgage advice I'd give to a client I'll never know.

The fact is she has to pay it, my plan is going to be to increase her income, she doesn't want the hassle of renting her house, plus I doubt the margins after costs and tax would be worth it. Savings seems to be the way forward.

Hopefully someone else might find the thread useful, unearthed a few things for me. My gran is hardly well off, a £150k unencumbered house and £50k in savings is probably fairly normal for a widow of a working couple. That's why it's a shame there is no help at all, compared to where lots of money does get spent elsewhere.

kidmugsy

"My gripe is that someone who works and saves should be in a better position than someone who hasn't." But that's the way our Welfare State is designed: you must have noticed.

margaretclare

This type of question comes up time and again on this site, and I have lost count of the times I've read it. It tends to give rise to very polarised opinions on both sides, and it tends to be couched in emotive terms like 'protect her assets' (from whom?) and 'force', rather like an invading army.

Look at it this way. Your Gran has a house which is worth some money. She no longer needs that house for its original purpose, which was to live in. She lives somewhere else - a care home. That care home requires her to pay for board and lodging, food, and 'care'. Laundry, cleaning, all those things come into it too.

Your Gran has some savings but her main estate is tied up in the bricks and mortar. To give her the best possible quality of life in what remains to her of life, that asset - the house - could be turned into hard cash.

I don't see the problem. Her life's savings and hard work are not going to be 'sucked away' but used to give her a reasonable quality of life.

I agree with you about money being wasted elsewhere. Did you know that prescription charges have gone up today - but only in England? And although we're not in the euro (thank goodness!!) we are expected to bail out other countries which are - Portugal being the most recent example? Don't get me started on all that.

dunstonh

kidmugsy wrote: »

"My gripe is that someone who works and saves should be in a better position than someone who hasn't." But that's the way our Welfare State is designed: you must have noticed.

It may be a regional thing, I don't know, but in our area, those that have no money tend to be in local authority homes whilst those that do have money are in better quality private care homes. That standard of facilities and quality of environment being the biggest difference (Although the quality of the care workers is generally no different).

Gorgeous_George

I understand the frustration that our elderly have to sell their homes thereby depriving their sons, daughters, granchildren of an inheritance. IMHO their should be basic care provided by the State in huge hospitals. Better care should be paid for personally but subsidised by the state up to the cost of providing the basic care. What I don't like is when some people legally deprive themselves of assets because they are smarter than others who try to do so only when it is too late.

One way around it is for the sons, daughters, grandchildren to care for your Gran.

Another way (and one that I consider fair) - although too late in your case - is to ensure the family home is held in joint names as tenants in common. On death of one of the owners (s)he is free to leave his/her share of the property to whomever they wish in their Will.

GG