Putting home into family trust to avoid nursing home fees

Mojisola

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?

clemmatis wrote: »

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.

I have sympathy with both views. It is very frustrating to see people who either haven't (rather than couldn't) worked most of the lives or who worked but spent to the limit on having fun then having their care homes paid for while the people (who may well have had the same income as their profligate neighbours) who were careful with their money don't get any assistance.

On the other hand, we can't leave elderly people without care and anyone with a reasonable amount of capital shouldn't expect the current taxpayers to look after them while they leave their money to their children (who have done nothing to earn it).

It's the choice that would make me grateful that I had saved. I could decide where I wanted to live and would have more money to spend on a weekly basis. Council-funded people are give £23.50 a week to pay for all outgoings - new clothes, shampoo and so on, birthday presents and cards to family, in some homes hairdressers and chiropodist, any sweets or alcohol you might fancy.

pollypenny

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?

Oh, yes, theoretical, or should that be mythical, two people - one a spendthrift and one thrifty!

In reality most people are a bit of both.

clemmatis

Mojisola wrote: »

It's the choice that would make me grateful that I had saved. I could decide where I wanted to live and would have more money to spend on a weekly basis. Council-funded people are give £23.50 a week to pay for all outgoings - new clothes, shampoo and so on, birthday presents and cards to family, in some homes hairdressers and chiropodist, any sweets or alcohol you might fancy.

(My mother was self-funding) yes, the £23.50 a week is important too and so is the ability to change care home/nursing home if necessary.

Doc_N

Fascinating thread, which I've now read right through. Pity it's drifted so far from the original topic ("Putting home into family trust to avoid nursing home fees") though.

Trying to return to topic, it seems to me that most attempts to achieve the avoidance of nursing home fees are likely to fail at the first hurdle, though. You go to a solicitor. They ask what you're seeking to achieve. You tell them it's the avoidance of care home fees, and that's it. Merely explaining the purpose of the visit provides exactly the evidence the local authority will be looking for when they seek to challenge the arrangement a few years down the line - and there's no time limit, despite the common misconception that it's around 6 years.

Tenancies in common are certainly helpful, but if anyone's successfully used the discretionary trust route I'd be interested to hear of any experiences.

peejaybe

This is my first post and I'm not too sure if this is the place to post - but it seems an active, friendly place.:)
I'm asking on behalf of my wife. Both her parents had to go into a residential home 6 months ago because their worsening dementia made it unsafe to stay in their home. Their care cost is coming from their savings which will soon be used up. My wife has LPOA and has put their house on the market. We have just found out that her parents own the house as tenants in common. It has been suggested to us that this might place the house out of the reach of the Local Authority. It seems unlikely to me but we feel obliged to follow up all possibilities so that my wife can assure her brothers that she has done all she can to protect 'their inheritance'. Is their any realistic hope that the value of the house can be saved for the children?

seven-day-weekend

I'm no expert, but I wouldn't think so if they are both in care. If one was in care and one wasn't, the share of the house belonging to the person in care would usually be ignored (as you can't sell part of a house). It would be ignored in any case if a person over sixty was living in it, regardless of the tenure.

However as they are both in care, both their shares can be sold to pay for it.

I hasten to add I am no expert, someone else may come along who knows better, but that is what I understand to be the case.

Welcome to the forum.

(And tell your brothers that they have no inheritance until your parents die, until then all the assets belong to the parents!).

margaretclare

I agree with 7DWE, who has it spot on. I particularly agree with her final comment. This whole thing about 'entitlement to an inheritance' and 'being stolen to pay care costs' is one which comes up regularly on this site, as regularly as sunrise.

The idea of putting title to a property as 'tenants in common' means that each owns half each, and each can leave their half as an 'inheritance', the idea being that it's much harder to sell half a property. On the first death therefore the survivor owns half but the other half is owned by e.g. sons or daughters. As both parents are now in care this can't apply. They are each liable for their own costs.

HTH

teajug

clemmatis wrote: »

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.

That would be OK if residents got good care in these homes. The fees are outrageous and the care is nil, save for when relatives are with their love ones.

Care homes should be changed from a place to give local people employment until some thing better comes along and they leave. The wages are very low and good cares will always leave to find work that is better paid.
Care home should be a 'home' from 'home' not a place where residents are locked away for 24/7 and forgotten about until relatives comes to see them again.
In a lot of cases there are no relatives to keep an eye on their loves ones in these homes and then god help them. It does not matter how many thousands of pounds residents pay these greedy care home owners as they will want to make as much money out of the elderly and disabled as possible.

As we all have seen on the media of cases in these care home that they employ staff that are should be let no where near elderly and disabled people, but they are cheap labour, some of them are now locked away in prison and I am sure they will find it is better treatment there for inmates than the care home that they were abusing residents in and it still goes on with impunity.

Government do not care because as soon as residents die the better it is for them as they will be making savings on pensions payouts to OAP's and NHS saves as well, so it is no joy in getting old and living out your last days in one of these so called 'care' home. :mad:

Savvy_Sue

peejaybe wrote: »

Both her parents had to go into a residential home 6 months ago because their worsening dementia made it unsafe to stay in their home. Their care cost is coming from their savings which will soon be used up.

One question would be whether they should in fact by paying for their care, or whether their needs are medical as much as social, in which case they might be entitled to CHC funding.

Be aware that it may be a massive battle to get this. We have a sticky thread here, which is now locked because Martin has recently published an article on making claims for this, as there's a deadline for making claims for past care. Hopefully this will help in that both the health and Social Services personnel will realise that people are more aware of the possibility, and won't gloss over the procedures. But if your PIL were not properly assessed for this before they went into a home, it's not too late to insist that this is done!

Embee

Fortunately the situation highlighted by Teajug is not what my parents are experiencing (see item 207 from my husband, Peejaybe). They are in a pleasant home, sharing a room together, with kind and caring staff. I'm able to visit regularly and at different times and have always found staff caring and helpful. An extra bonus is that they are in a room together next to a very pretty garden so we often sit outside in the sunshine with tea and biscuits provided by the home. The original post was to question about selling their house and replies have been helpful - thank you.