Housing benefit for homeowners

John_Stiles

Transformer wrote: »

Removing the choice of the relatives, as in if they had funds they could release and choose their chosen home, if no funds has to take what is offered.

I hope social services keep an eye on the vulnerable elderly and realise how far their inheritees might go to get all they can.

Op you disgust me, what if everyone had the same attitude as you?

I dont think you from what I have read any true feelings or care for your relatives, remember karma

That's incorrect.

Transformer

John_Stiles wrote: »

That's incorrect.

You typed your thread, I amongst other read it and formed an opinion based on that, it is right as far as I am concerned my view that is that you do not put your relatives ongoing care when the time comes as a priority, simply by you wanting the money protected when could furnish them with the care of their choice, not what told where have to go on benefit elderly care due to lack of funds you wish to stash away for your supposed inheritance.

Believe what you want I simply dont think you are capable of realising you are out of order hence I feel sorry for your relatives.

John_Stiles

Transformer wrote: »

You typed your thread, I amongst other read it and formed an opinion based on that, it is right as far as I am concerned my view that is that you do not put your relatives ongoing care when the time comes as a priority, simply by you wanting the money protected when could furnish them with the care of their choice, not what told where have to go on benefit elderly care due to lack of funds you wish to stash away for your supposed inheritance.

Believe what you want I simply dont think you are capable of realising you are out of order hence I feel sorry for your relatives.

No none of that is accurate.

John_Stiles

Well, it's all sorted now. A trust has been set up.



Unlike so many people, the person who is soon to buy the property will almost certainly not have to pay any care home fees should the situation ever arise. Also, they have left the property in full to me to inherit. Technically neither I nor the person is the owner of the property (when it is bought) and so it is safe from the council and IHT, nor will there be any issues with HB, as the property belongs (or will belong) to a trust.

Sam____2

wow, that happened really quite quickly, I know when we set up ours it took weeks to do...

thorsoak

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transformer
You typed your thread, I amongst other read it and formed an opinion based on that, it is right as far as I am concerned my view that is that you do not put your relatives ongoing care when the time comes as a priority, simply by you wanting the money protected when could furnish them with the care of their choice, not what told where have to go on benefit elderly care due to lack of funds you wish to stash away for your supposed inheritance.

Believe what you want I simply dont think you are capable of realising you are out of order hence I feel sorry for your relatives.

No none of that is accurate.

So how do you propose to fund the care of your elderly relative? Or are you leaving it up to the State?

MissMoneypenny

pertob wrote: »

I would be more then happy to live in a home that is paid for by the state (for which I have paid into for 46 years) and see the fruits of my labour pass onto my children.

Go and look at the mimimum level of care the state provides and then come back and tell us if you would be happy to spend your last years (when you need most help and comfort) in one of those homes.

In one home I visited, it had a 2 tier standard. Those that paid, got a far better room/s, in a better area and had their own bathrooms and toilets. The state paid floor, had a small basic room and they shared toilets and bathrooms with the whole floor. The state paid for floor, always smelt of urine. Those on the private floor were helped to the toilet whenever they needed help. On the state paid for floor, they had time slots to go the toilet, even if they needed to go sooner or didn't want to go when it was their "time" for being put on the toilet.

One poor old lady was stuck in the state paid for section and was rarely visited. Her children had taken the money from her house, and left her to it. Her son's wife, ruled the roost!

My mother is in a private nursing home (no state paid for people, unless they get full nursing fees while they are already in the home). When she needs anything extra that the state doesn't pay for i.e. hairdresser, specially adapted wheelchair so that she has some independence, she can use her own money from her house, to pay for all of these comforts. Without the ability to pay for her own adapted wheelchair, she would be stuck in a bed most of the day.

I wouldn't have dreamed of taking my mothers house money and denying her a comfortable old age. Why are your children willing to do this to you? The state "care" will get worse, not better, as more and more want to be paid for.

pertob wrote: »

They have done the same already to protect their estates and not surprisingly Mr Cameron sits on the same branch of the same tree that Mr Blair sits on, and have both used the same advisors!! (Actually paid for by the taxpayers as claimed as expenses whilst sitting as MP's)

They will have taken advice on tax avoidance on death. I doubt that Cameron or Blair will be daft enough to rely on the basic state paid care homes, in their old age.

John_Stiles

thorsoak wrote: »

Quote:
Originally Posted by Transformer
You typed your thread, I amongst other read it and formed an opinion based on that, it is right as far as I am concerned my view that is that you do not put your relatives ongoing care when the time comes as a priority, simply by you wanting the money protected when could furnish them with the care of their choice, not what told where have to go on benefit elderly care due to lack of funds you wish to stash away for your supposed inheritance.

Believe what you want I simply dont think you are capable of realising you are out of order hence I feel sorry for your relatives.

No none of that is accurate.

So how do you propose to fund the care of your elderly relative? Or are you leaving it up to the State?

Yes, if it is ever necessary, it will be paid for by the state, because there is now a trust in place. The property will not need to be sold to pay for it and therefore will not be lost. And I will inherit it and the state cannot touch it. Great result.

Morglin

John_Stiles wrote: »

So to clarify, we live in a country where...

A person works hard for decades and buys a property. That person wants to be free of stress and financial worry and just enjoy their life, and leave the property, which they live in with somebody else, to someone. They have 3 choices.

They either leave it to them in a will, in which case if they become ill and need to go into care they have to sell their property to pay for it and thus gradually lose all the money that they have saved, and the person in the will gets nothing.

Or, they can just carry on owning the property, in which case if they become ill and need to go into care they have to sell their property to pay for it and thus gradually lose all the money that they have saved, and the person in the will gets nothing.

Or they can just sign over the property to the other person, in which case if they become ill and need to go into care they will be ok as it will be paid for them, but the person who owns the property but doesn't live in it is then considered to not need HB and has to sell the property in order to pay their rent.


Is that correct?

It can be even more complicated than that - if people give away a property to their kids or anyone, they can then be classed (by the councils) as having depived themselves of assets to save care costs, and the councils go after the relatives for the care costs.

My mum has had to go into care, and whilst their house is 'safe' while my dad is alive, the minute he dies, the council will demand the house is sold and the money used to pay mum's care costs (until it gets below £23k).

I've got no major issues with that, but I think perhaps there could be a fairer way found to fund all this.

What's making it worse is that her (childless) brother has just died, left her all of his estate, which is going to be worth about £800k, after taxes, and all that will also have to go into her care cost pot...........:eek::eek::eek: - I really think Dave and George could give me a little bit of this lol;)

Her solicitor and the executor are trying to some sort of will variation, as it's getting a bit silly now, with all this money sloshing about and care costs of nearly £1000 per week, when it's sorted lol - still, if all else fails, I could always take out a contract on her..............:eek::beer:;)

Another old lady I know paid a lot of money for a solicitor to make her daughters owners of her house - but when she had to go into care, the care costs had to be paid, by the daughters, because the old girl/daughters were seen as having tried to deprive the state of the capital.

As for HB, if you own another property you will not get HB for more than about 6 months.

Lin

antrobus

Morglin wrote: »

...As for HB, if you own another property you will not get HB for more than about 6 months...

That question has already been asked and answered, and as previously pointed out the rules regarding 'Property you own but do not occupy' are summarised here - http://www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/specialist-guides/technical-guidance/rr2-a-guide-to-housing-benefit/working-it-out/income-and-capital/ - by the DWP.

Basically any property occupied by an elderly or disabled relative as their home, or occupied by a former partner who is a lone parent, is not taken into account at all for HB purposes, whilst in other situations its value may not be taking into account for 26 weeks. (Which is where I think the 6 months comes in.)

I know that this is dangerously close to sticking to the point of this thread, but that can't be helped.