Intentional deprivation of assets

Savvy_Sue

Mojisola wrote: »

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.

Well obviously, if I had PofA, I'd be making sure that the person had all their needs and more than met before I started dishing out birthday gifts on the same scale as before. However, when the savings level falls JUST below the point where the LA start funding, I see no reason not to take a balanced view of whether the person whose affairs I am looking after is likely to get through all those savings in their anticipated remaining lifetime. If I get my calculations wrong and they survive longer than anticipated, the gifts would stop as soon as it was clear it was possible that continuing to give like that would have a detrimental effect on their comfort. And I'd start 'treating' the elderly person myself, if I was at all in a position to do so.

Biggles wrote: »

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?

Biggles, my understanding is that the LA will NOT take these presents out of pension, pension credit etc: that income goes to the LA to go towards the cost of the care home which the LA is paying for. It may or may not meet the whole of that bill. However even if the costs of the care home are way more than the person's income, the person MUST be left with £20 per week.

But we are talking about (at least) two different situations. For the OP, while the person's savings are above the limit, you - on their behalf - can continue to give gifts as generously as they have always done.

cavework

monkeyspanner wrote: »

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.

LA funded residents can be moved but as you say only if there is another suitable home within the LA area.
This gives the relatives the chance to argue there are NO other suitable homes in the area.
You may be suprised to know that LA residents are not always subsidised by self funding residents
For LA funded residents , family are not allowed to top up the fee's and the resident is only allowed to pay their income minus £20 a week allowance as pocket money.
No one in the family should ever be asked to contribute to the top up in the case of LA funding.

littlemissbossy

WGG1848 wrote: »

Can we continue to give these gifts on her behalf?

littlemissbossy wrote: »

I am in the same situation as you.

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.

HTH

Mojisola wrote: »

If someone in a care home is being funded by SS, they are only allowed to keep just over £20 a week to cover all their personal spending.

Do you really want to take four weeks' money just so you still have £100 for your birthday?

After I got roasted on here I thought I would stay away but I've got over it now and I'm back for (hopefully not) round two.

I was originally purely answering the OP question Can we continue to give these gifts on her behalf?,which in my experience the answer was yes.

As for the £100 present issue, although my MIL and FIL are in a care home they have "all their chairs at home" and know exactly what they want to do with their money but are just not physically able get to the bank.

I buy the birthday/xmas cards, withdraw the cash and take it round to them. They then both write their mesages put the money in the cards and they're happy.

I then put the money to one side and when the nursing home ask for a top up to their "float" which pays for their newspapers, clothing names tags, accompanied hospital visits, outings and haircuts, I give them this money. Any leftovers pays for anything they ask me to get like crisps, fav chocolates, slippers and toiletries

I hope by giving this extra detail I am in a better light and can come off the naughty chair.:)

pineapple

I highly recommend CareAware for advice on just this sort of issue. Moreover it's independent and it's free.
http://www.careaware.co.uk/

[Deleted User]

I'm ill and I need full time care. So suddenly all the money I've saved goes to the State to fund my care. But I spent a lifetime paying into a healthcare system. My saved money should be spent by me on things to give myself "extra-care" if I want and the other things I saved up for - maybe to leave to my grandchildren or someone else. If I were so rich I'm sure I would have invested in a private health scheme. You don't find rich people having their assets seized by the state to pay for their care in old age.

margaretclare

[Deleted User] wrote:

I'm ill and I need full time care. So suddenly all the money I've saved goes to the State to fund my care. But I spent a lifetime paying into a healthcare system.

You're confusing 'health' with 'care'.

If you have an illness which may get better with treatment from the health services, or even one from which you can't get better but with which your life may be prolonged, you'll get NHS treatment. If you're not expected to get better or even to have your life prolonged, what you'll get is 'care', or rather, what is euphemistically called 'social care'.

My saved money should be spent by me on things to give myself "extra-care" if I want and the other things I saved up for - maybe to leave to my grandchildren or someone else. If I were so rich I'm sure I would have invested in a private health scheme. You don't find rich people having their assets seized by the state to pay for their care in old age.

I don't know very many rich people - well, I don't personally know any at all! But I doubt if this scenario arises because a rich person would automatically check into the most expensive care facility available and his/her accountant would see the bills were paid. The state wouldn't have anything to do with it.

There is always this stuff about leaving money to grandchildren. Why not use it for your own comfort and convenience while you're alive? One thing that money does give you is flexibility and choice. What's wrong with that?

Katykat

I had POA for my Mum and I gave cash presents to her children and grandchildren. When she was well, she usually bought presents rather than cash so it was difficult to determine the value. So with discussion with family we decided on specific sums for christmas,& birthdays. I didn't want the hassle of shopping for presents. Here's a thought though. My mum had Alzeimers disease, she wasn't in a care home because she wanted to be there ( quite the contrary), she was there because she was ill. Therefore, according to the NHS Act, she was entitiled to NHS care. So, I fought for it ( & it was a fight) and I won. All her fees are being refunded by the NHS which she paid into for 45 yrs. Remember, dementia isn't a "social" condition so why should it be paid for by social services, or by yourself.

theflowerpotman

Hello and help!

My MIL was admitted to a Care home a little over a year ago. My wife has full POA which also allows her to make bithrday gifts etc. There is also a clause which states that all of her reasonable expenses will be met. The time has now come, as MIL's resources are diminished, to apply for funding. Big problem. We live 800 miles from MIL and her son lives in the Far East. None of us can afford the frequent visits that MIL would wish, so we used MIL money to fund trips. The LA says that this is Deliberate Deprivation, even though my wife has POA and there is no doubt that her mother would wholly endorse these visits, and the use of her capital in this way. So, are the LA acting within their brief?

As always, therer is much, much more but I would be very grateful for any comments about this.

Thank you in advance.

Errata

Don't want to read and run. Perhaps the LA may be taking the view that the MIL, if she were able, would endorse this use of her capital knowing full well that the LA would fund her place when her capital reduced to the appropriate level.

Savvy_Sue

theflowerpotman wrote: »

Hello and help!

My MIL was admitted to a Care home a little over a year ago. My wife has full POA which also allows her to make bithrday gifts etc. There is also a clause which states that all of her reasonable expenses will be met. The time has now come, as MIL's resources are diminished, to apply for funding. Big problem. We live 800 miles from MIL and her son lives in the Far East. None of us can afford the frequent visits that MIL would wish, so we used MIL money to fund trips. The LA says that this is Deliberate Deprivation, even though my wife has POA and there is no doubt that her mother would wholly endorse these visits, and the use of her capital in this way. So, are the LA acting within their brief?

Errata wrote: »

Don't want to read and run. Perhaps the LA may be taking the view that the MIL, if she were able, would endorse this use of her capital knowing full well that the LA would fund her place when her capital reduced to the appropriate level.

flowerpotman, I think that if your wife's been using MIL's capital to finance trips home for her son, the LA may indeed be taking this view. However, whether they are right or wrong in this, I'm not sure. It might help if you had evidence that MIL used to pay travel expenses in this way before granting PofA - did she?

It could be well worth while consulting Age UK or Counsel and Care for advice on this.

Also I don't know if an Attorney can claim reasonable expenses from the person whose affairs they are administrating.