Selling house to avoid care costs

dancingdoll

Hi

I'm looking for advice on my Dad. It's looking probable that in the next few years he may need care or to move into a home. He's aware of this and has heard of horror stories of councils taking houses to pay for care – and so doesn't want to lose his house, or his family to lose their inheritance.

I'm guessing he'll need to sign over the house to the family to avoid any future costs. Does anyone have any idea on what can be done to protect his assets? He's only got a small house and would rather it went to his family than the council.

All advice appreciated!

rebeccaj

This would probably be seen as Deliberate Deprivation of Assets, which is actually against the law. A useful fact sheet regarding this situation is available here

and anyway, it (the house) isn't actually going to the council, it's going to be used for his benefit so it's not like his asset is being taken away from him...just used to give him a comfortable later life.

real1314

"against the law" is a bit of an overstatement, and it is a minefield as to how an individual case would be seen.

as regards it being used "for his benefit", that's true, but people who didn;t bother to save for their own homes will still get the same benefit and treatment as the OPs dad, so he will see the house used to cover costs, an the inheritance he wanted to pass on will erode.

As always, those that save will have to pay, those that don't will get it anyway.

Gorgeous_George

I sympathise with your viewpoint real1314. However, if inheritees want to safeguard 'their inheritance' (which I find repugnant) then they should provide the care for their elderly relatives themselves. Perhaps in their homes.

The care provided for those who chose not to save for their old age should be of a mimimal standard and certianly not the £500+ per week many homes charge. I'm sure the NHS could provide 'hotel-style' accommodation more economically.

Apologies dancingdoll, none of this really helps.


GG

mystic_trev

real1314 wrote:

as regards it being used "for his benefit", that's true, but people who didn;t bother to save for their own homes will still get the same benefit and treatment as the OPs dad

No - Local Care services would find the cheapest option if someone had no savings. At least if the OP's Dad owns his home they can choose somewhere he'll be better looked after, with nicer suroundings and have a bit more Dignity.

nrsql

mystic_trev wrote:

No - Local Care services would find the cheapest option if someone had no savings. At least if the OP's Dad owns his home they can choose somewhere he'll be better looked after, with nicer suroundings and have a bit more Dignity.

I think it probably depends on the region, but in my experience that's not true.

Also if the care is clinical rather than social it should not be means tested so the house should be safe - but again it depends on the region and a number of councils act unlawfully in this respect (possibly due to the budget they are allowed but...).

I'm afraid there's no easy answer to this and as the population ages there will be more pressure on care systems.
Visiting carers are also an option but again (in my experience) they don't give very good service (not their fault I might add).

rebeccaj

real1314 wrote:

"against the law" is a bit of an overstatement,

the statement was taken from this government page where it says:

It is against the law to transfer ownership of an asset to another person specifically to avoid paying your care home fees.

mistermoneysaver

Having read a couple of pages on this subject, it looks like its possible to rent your dads house out to pay for his care. I suppose you could rent it off of him and rent your own house if you have one. Thereby not losing the house for his care. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong though.

seven-day-weekend

Yes, you can rent the house out. AFAIK it doesn't matter how you raise the money as long as it's raised. The reason many people have to sell their homes is they have no other way of raising enough money.

lynzpower

All a bit previous dont you think?

At the end of the day, if he needs social care ( shopping bathing being put to bed?) could family do this- therefore negating the need for the house to be sold at all? Its only if he needs SOCIAL care and either a) he has no means to pay it privately b) family or freinds cant help out that it progresses down the road of needing to find money to pay for it.

Couldnt he sell up and move into sheltered now? there are lots of good schemes he can buy into, with staff on hand to support & enable?

If he needs nursing & medical care the NHS pays for it in any case.

SO171NOT

Help for dancing doll

Get a grip everyone! Whatever your views of caring for the elderly etc, don't lose sight of what we're all on this site for - to help others save money! I'm a young disabled person myself and have a full time job, mortgage etc. The last thing MSE's should be doing is allowing councils to dictate how we spend our money. If care was properly funded through the NHS via direct taxation then it would all be there for all of us instead of those who have worked hard and paid all our lives losing out through being careful!

Whilst it is not legal to "get rid" of capital, a good legal advisor can help people create a trust so that the local authority pay the trust. If the house is signed over now to the dependants, then dad will need to live for 7 years to avoid tax issues - obviously let's hope he does. HTH.