Intentional deprivation of assets

Savvy_Sue

Mojisola wrote: »

You said I was being harsh - I don't agree.

There were two separate issues - the self-funder can carry on giving her usual gifts without it being considered deprivation of capital; the person funded by the council would only have just over £20 a week pocket money. Spending £400 on two birthday and two Christmas gifs would take most of her money for 20 weeks of the year.

Do you really think it's harsh to suggest that the relatives might want to think again about this?

While I can see what you're saying, the statutory funding kicks in before ALL the savings are used up, doesn't it? So the £20 pw week thing is what is left from whatever regular income the person is left with.

Ongoing birthday gifts etc could therefore be funded from the remaining savings pot. Those with PofA will need to consider what the person would want to happen at that stage. Given that the remaining savings CANNOT be used, as I understand it, to buy better care for the individual, why not spend on family if that's what was happening?

(I could be wrong about that last paragraph, but I thought that any 'top-up' between what the LA is prepared to pay and what the person / family might find desirable had to be paid by family, NOT by the person needing the care.)

cavework

If a person in a Nursing Home is LA funded the family are not allowed to make a top up and should not be asked to do so.
Top ups should be sought from charities, Trade Unions etc.
Hope this helps.

monkeyspanner

cavework wrote: »

If a person in a Nursing Home is LA funded the family are not allowed to make a top up and should not be asked to do so.
Top ups should be sought from charities, Trade Unions etc.
Hope this helps.

We are digressing from the OP thread but:

Unless the rules have changed, family or friends are permitted but not obliged to make 3rd party top-ups to fees and several families I know have been pressured by social services to make these top-ups and sign what effectively are open ended agreements. Care home residents who are LA assisted and have less than the lower savings limit are not permitted to pay their own top-ups but I believe social services in some areas turn a blind eye to this happening.

As you say top-ups can also be requested from charities, trade unions etc.

The LA is not allowed to request 3rd party top-ups if there are no alternative care homes with vacancies in the area who will accept a resident at the LA standard care support rate for the residents care needs rating. Recently a welsh LA was taken to court by several care homes who claimed that the fee support levels were inadequate and had not been calculated correctly. The court found in the care homes favour and the support levels were raised by the LA.

If no 3rd party funding sources are found then LA funded residents can be moved to a lower fee home but the LA should carry out a risk assessment regarding the residents well being.

These arrangments can cause problems when a self-funded resident reaches the lower savings limit and transfers to LA assistance. The self-funding fees are generally higher than LA assisted residents for the same level of care in the same home. The home may be reluctant to accept lower fees on transfer to LA assistance and a funding gap appears. So after possibly years of subsidising LA funded residents someone who has been self-funding can end up being moved to another home.

Mojisola

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

Ongoing birthday gifts etc could therefore be funded from the remaining savings pot. Those with PofA will need to consider what the person would want to happen at that stage. Given that the remaining savings CANNOT be used, as I understand it, to buy better care for the individual, why not spend on family if that's what was happening?

If it was my relative in a home, I would rather their weekly personal spending money and the small amount of capital they would have left was spent on themselves - clothes, hairdresser, chiropodist, hand cream, shampoo and all other personal stuff, etc.

If they wanted to continue giving something for birthdays, a smaller amount would be acceptable. It they insisted on still giving £100, I would find ways of giving it back to them. I wouldn't get any pleasure from spending £100 knowing it accounted for such a high proportion of their money.

pollypenny

THat was precisely the point I was making., Mojisola.

Why would anyone who is young(ish) and working want to take money from an elderly relative!

Biggles

pollypenny wrote: »

Why would anyone who is young(ish) and working want to take money from an elderly relative!

I wouldn't be too harsh on the poster, I'm not sure it would work out quite that way in the long run.

First off, it's a long-standing arrangement and the old lady probably wants to continue doing it and gets pleasure from it.

But their funds are now below the level needed for the LA to step in and and will no doubt carry in diminishing. The LA have OK'd these gifts continuing, so will the money not be, effectively, coming from the LA in the long term?

Mojisola

Biggles wrote: »

But their funds are now below the level needed for the LA to step in and and will no doubt carry in diminishing. The LA have OK'd these gifts continuing, so will the money not be, effectively, coming from the LA in the long term?

No, because the LA will pay only the care home fees. When the elderly relative has used her remaining capital, all she will have left is just over £20 a week spending money. No-one is going to replenish her capital for her.

Biggles

No but, having set the precedent, the LA will still allow her to pay these presents (along with any other agreed ongoing expenses) out of her pension, pension credit etc before taking the rest away and leaving her with her £20pw.

Won't they?

WGG1848

I appear to have hit a nerve or two with this post.

'Why would anyone who is young(ish) and working want to take money from an elderly relative!'

Quite a slant on my original post, and where did the £100 come from?

M I L's wishes and welfare are foremost in our minds, the problem starts when the local authorities start their interpretation of the rules/guide lines. They themselves admit, that there are a lot of 'grey' area's in the whole system.
We wanted clarification, and indeed were advised, to get her financial affairs scrutinesed by the local authority, now, well before her assets were below £23,500.
We are, and can, account for every penny spent since her illness started. Prior to that date she took care of her own finances (she is a widow) and a lot of what she spent is recorded, but not everything. What is a worry is when people start making assumptions as to the reason she spent a particular amount of money. She is in no position to help with their inquires.

Mojisola

littlemissbossy wrote: »

My MIL and FIL are in a nursing home and I am their POA.

They self funded for the first 12 months and then the LA stepped in.

My husband and I (their only family) have always been given £100 each for birthday and xmas. I discussed this with the finance department who confirmed this was ok as it had always been done, although it has always been cash and no records over kept.

WGG1848 wrote: »

I appear to have hit a nerve or two with this post.

'Why would anyone who is young(ish) and working want to take money from an elderly relative!'

Quite a slant on my original post, and where did the £100 come from?

Your situation is quite different and your MIL can carry on giving the gifts as she always has done.

littlemissbossy's Parents in Law are being funded by the LA and so only have access to the spending money allowed them and the remains of their capital - a very different situation when the regular gifts are £100 a time.