Putting home into family trust to avoid nursing home fees

Mojisola

lessonlearned wrote: »

It is not the "poshest" of homes, the furniture is shabby, the carpets are threadbare and yes it is a little "whiffy" at times - after all many of the residents are incontinent.

However, none of that matters, because the staff are wonderful and the residents are treated with the utmost tender loving care and accorded the respect they deserve.

Within reason the residents can do what they want when they want because the staff are adamant that for each resident it is their home, it is not a facility run for the convenience of the staff.

You have described exactly the kind of home I am looking for in case my parents have to move into one!

The "good" ones that I have looked around are like 5-star hotels and I know my parents would be profoundly uncomfortable and feel out-of-place in them. I also wonder at the amount of money spent on fixtures and fittings and whether it means less goes into staffing.

Thanks for your post - very wise words.

Pollycat

Mojisola wrote: »

You have described exactly the kind of home I am looking for in case my parents have to move into one!

The "good" ones that I have looked around are like 5-star hotels and I know my parents would be profoundly uncomfortable and feel out-of-place in them. I also wonder at the amount of money spent on fixtures and fittings and whether it means less goes into staffing.

Thanks for your post - very wise words.

Mojisola
we found such a home for my Dad who had a brief but happy stay last year before he sadly died.

My sister & I went to look at it, armed with a personal recommendation from a professional person that my sister knows (can't remember what they did now) as her Mum had been a resident there for a while. She said to look past the decor.

The room they had for my Dad was fine, he had a nice view of a local landmark.
We sat in one of the reception rooms and chatted to a few of the female residents who all seemed to be happy there. One gave us chapter and verse on the menu (which she obviously enjoyed very much).

It was luckily on the local bus route so Mum could hop on the half-hour service and be there in 10 minutes so she could visit Dad whenever she wanted without having to rely on lifts.

Here's the biggest recommendation for a care home that has threadbare carpets and is a 'bit whiffy' at times:
My Mum said "if I ever have to go into a home, you'd better make sure it's XXX".

lessonlearned

Just a thought - the care home that my OH is in said he could take his own furniture for his room. He said he wasn't bothered.

However, I have bought him his own bedlinen, some extra large fluffy bath towels, I've hung some of his favourite paintings around the room. I've also put a new TV in, dvd player and got him a broadband/tv/phone package set up. He has his computer and own phone so he can ring me whenever he wants. Basically it's set up like a little bedsit, with a couple of armchairs for visitors.

He was offered a lovely room all freshly done out with a very smart new wet room. It overlooked the gardens, however OH preferred to chose a room which, although not as nice, overlooked the main entrance so that he could watch all the coming and goings. He likes to sit and watch the world go by.

One thing the home does have is lots of wide corridors and large communal rooms - the residents mostly have powered wheelchairs so they can whizz around and be independent. They are not stuck in their rooms waiting for someone to wheel them around.

The other thing that is really nice is that there is a huge conservatory where you can sit and look out onto open fields and watch the wildlife. It's full of plants which residents can tend and it overlooks a large terrace where there are bird tables etc.

Sorry didn't mean to hijack this thread - but given that many of you have expressed concerns about nursing homes - they are not all horror stories and I thought it might help you to get some idea that you might need to look beyond the decor etc

Yes I would prefer my OH to be at home but like many posters have said I simply cannot offer him the care and support he needs on a 24/7 basis. It just cannot be done.

PS Just edited to say - one of the things I was really concerned about is that OH was kept active and entertained. So many homes just plonk residents in front of a TV and leave them to rot. OH's home has an activities co-ordinator and I now volunteer once a week and go in and help her.

Sorry I'm done now.

margaretclare

jmt wrote: »

I have sat this afternoon reading through this very interesting thread and although the original OP never returned, I would like to comment on his posting.

I am mid 40's (so why am I reading an over 50's money saving ) but my DH is 10 years older and 6.5 years away from retirement :j

I totally disagree with original OP as I think that fees should be paid from assets or family should take over the care and then inherit.

My MIL was widowed 2 years ago and she recently asked us if we wanted to inherit her property. Her idea was that we could sell our home and have our money and move in with her (she would convert large garage into granny flat). This would mean that she would not need to go into a care home and she would leave us 100% of the property, cutting her eldest son out totally (or leaving a few £1000 so he could not to contest her will) as she is adamant that it is the people who look after her who should benefit.

For me it took no time at all to come to a decision. I am not prepared to give up the early years of mine and DH retirement (should we make it) to look after someone. You may think I am heartless, but I cannot be bought and I want to spend MY life doing what I want to do. My MIL has savings and her home to cover what is required and when it is gone, the state will take over.

I look at life....I came in with nothing, I have worked for everything I have achieved and own, nobody has ever given me anything and I will go out with nothing.

I think you've made a wise decision, probably one that I would make myself.

It would be quite possible that, even if you'd done all that MIL suggested, your MIL might still have needed to go 'into care', depending on what nasties she developed in later years. There's another thread running headed 'How can we stop the Govt stealing all Mum's money...' and in the case illustrated there, Mum has been 'sectioned' under the Mental Health Acts as being 'a danger to herself and/or others' - the dreaded Alzheimer's (and yes, it IS dreaded, with reason). So, if MIL had developed similar, with the best will in the world she could not be looked after at home, by you, even 24/7. It's also conceivable that, if you'd gone along with all MIL's suggestions, she might have felt 'she was owed' and might have become a lot more dependent and demanding as time went on.

I completely agree with the last sentence. My thoughts, and DH's, entirely. Thank goodness, all the younger members of our family, those of working age, are gainfully-employed, something which isn't the case in all families. As for those of ours who're still at school..just heard George Monbiot on Radio 4 'Today' saying that he thinks all independent schools should be shut down because they 'discourage upward mobility' or some such. Had to smile. My DH's 2 granddaughters go to an ancient public school. 'Upward mobility'? Their ancestors landed on these shores as penniless immigrants around the end of 19th/early20th century, literally with what they stood up in. You can't get much more 'upwardly mobile' than that.

DH is always saying that no one left him a penny-piece. Nor me - they had nowt to leave, my grandad couldn't even pay for my granny's funeral in one go. What we've gained has been gained by working. Oh, it's becoming such a cliche - 'worked hard all their lives, paid taxes, etc etc etc' as MrTed is fond of saying.

I am very, very grateful for modern medical/surgical techniques and care. There was a very real possibility that DH would end up in a wheelchair because displaced intervertebral discs were causing pressure on his spinal cord. A few years ago surgery to remedy this would not have been possible. He'll be home probably mid-week, and that nightmare scenario has been removed.

PS: Well done to lessonlearned. I have the greatest reason for understanding yours and your husband's plight.

lessonlearned

margaretclare wrote: »

I t

DH is always saying that no one left him a penny-piece. Nor me - they had nowt to leave, my grandad couldn't even pay for my granny's funeral in one go. What we've gained has been gained by working.

Same here. I won't inherit from my parents - well maybe a small amount if there's anything left - because their home will be used to fund their fees when the time comes.

Everything I have, I've worked for. My parents too. I'm lucky in that I should be able to give my children a bit of a leg up on to the property ladder when I downsize but they don't expect it.

It won't be a large amount but it will certainly be more than anyone ever gave me or my parents. We started with nothing;).

John_Pierpoint

The only problem with this "I will leave nothing behind" attitude is that you end up with a country like Greece. I should know I speak as someone who inherited my father's debts.

Every man woman and child in this country is already in hoc having spent its inheritance of natural resources and the run up huge debts. We are all feeling poor because of the flood of interest we are having to pay on this debt - like someone maxed out on their credit card.

Historically England lead the industrial revolution because families had concentrated their wealth in the eldest son. Thus leaving a legacy of capital for the new capitalist system and ambition on the part of the other sons who had to make their way in the world.

I have this feeling that in years to come if we are lucky in say 2035, our grandchildren might be able to say "Good news - we have got the country's credit card bill, owing the the Chinese, back to the level of 2007".

clemmatis

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Historically England lead the industrial revolution because families had concentrated their wealth in the eldest son. Thus leaving a legacy of capital for the new capitalist system and ambition on the part of the other sons who had to make their way in the world.

Oh yes? I thought other European countries practiced primogeniture too. The USA of course did not -- would that be why it's so poor?...

OK I have given way to sarcasm. But really, I have never seen this given as a reason for Britain's Industrial Revolution.

margaretclare

margaretclare wrote: »

As for those of ours who're still at school..just heard George Monbiot on Radio 4 'Today' saying that he thinks all independent schools should be shut down because they 'discourage upward mobility' or some such. Had to smile. My DH's 2 granddaughters go to an ancient public school. 'Upward mobility'? Their ancestors landed on these shores as penniless immigrants around the end of 19th/early20th century, literally with what they stood up in. You can't get much more 'upwardly mobile' than that.

Britain is one of the least mobile countries in the industrialised world. And that's getting worse. Note, "social mobility" does not normally refer to a penniless immigrant's great, great, great..., granddaughters being able to go to "an ancient public school". It refers to mobility either within one generation, or between two. And there is no doubt that the public school system in this country is a bar to social mobility. It may not be as bad as it was when Oxford and Cambridge had "closed scholarships" confined to students from certain public schools ("ancient" ones, indeed), but it is still bad.

Oxford research has found (more than once: the finding is consistent) that

private school students need higher grades at entry to do as well as their state school educated peers in final university examinations

The man who did this latest research, a distinguished academic, was educated at one of the original nine public schools, and Trinity College Cambridge. .

*******

Michael Gove, too, has attacked the dominance of public schools. He doesn't agree with Monbiot's solution (in public, anyway) but he agrees there's a problem. Really, this is not an eccentric view at all.

thestens

If you need care and have the money, then obviously you have to pay! Why should the state (me and those much less well off than myself) pay so that you can hand on your house to someone else?? Sorry but that's the way capitalism works - and I'm sure you would believe in the capitalist system!!!

Errata

Nothing in life is fair. Fact.
Given that, should the owner of a property worth several million pounds have their care paid for by the state? If not, where should the cutoff point be?

clemmatis

newsgirl wrote: »

The system needs to be fair for everyone. Two people earn the same amount over a lifetime, one spends all of it on lavish living and gets all their care paid for in old age; the other scrimps and saves and buys a home out of their taxed income and then loses it to pay for care.

It's hardly fair is it?

You forgot to mention that the second one can choose their care home.

And it is their house, the proceeds should be used for their benefit, i.e. for their care.