Advent-ures in the MSE Forum... Our Advent calendar is live, helping you discover a new corner of the community each day. Visit the homepage and scroll down

Selling home to pay care home fees?

Hi I wondered if any of you knowledgeable people on this forum may know anything about paying care fees and if there is any way to avoid selling an individual's home who needs care to pay for it.

A relative is currently in a nursing home after a stay in hospital and respite care. They felt unable to manage at home so went into a home and have been paying for this from their savings. Their health has not improved and they are unable to return home, obviously the savings are not going to last forever but after working hard all their life they are concerned that they are soon going to have to sell their house to pay for it. It seems unfair that you work hard all your life, pay tax
and you end up no better off for it and it all goes to the government surely this can't be right?
Is there any way around this?
Thank you in advance
«134567

Replies

  • SystemSystem Forumite, Community Admin
    177.9K Posts
    10,000 Posts Photogenic Name Dropper
    Community Admin
    Why is the money going to the government? The idea is to sell the house which will then fund the care home of your choice at the level of service that you want.

    As the vast majority of care homes are private then the only bit that the government will get is the tax on your payments to the care home.

    As the relative is unable to return home then they have NO requirement for a house any longer or are the descendants worried about the inheritance that they were hoping to get?
  • Unfortunately not. If you own your own home and go into care then of course the house is sold to fund the care.
    This happened to my dad, he too had saved and worked hard all his life but it was a case of him needing the care and so it had to be funded from selling his house.

    It wouldn't be right to expect the taxpayer to fund the care just so the house could be left to a relative. In an ideal world the care would be free, but it isn't. Its just a case of one home paying for the other, the person in care still has the roof over his head.
  • The government would pay for it instead if he didn't own a house, though?
    Maybe we're better off really enjoying and spending any money we have. Think of it as a whole lifetime of 'deprivation of capital'. :)
  • !!!!!! wrote: »
    Why is the money going to the government? The idea is to sell the house which will then fund the care home of your choice at the level of service that you want.

    As the vast majority of care homes are private then the only bit that the government will get is the tax on your payments to the care home.

    As the relative is unable to return home then they have NO requirement for a house any longer or are the descendants worried about the inheritance that they were hoping to get?

    Sorry perhaps I worded that wrong. The individual has already paid tax on their earnings that they have decided to save hard all their lives with the aim of leaving something to their children, so that must mean the children are greedy right?
    In a system that you pay into you may expect you would get some help out of it when you need it or where is the reward the going out to work and saving? If that isn't the case it sounds like the best idea would be to never go out to work claim benefits then the government will pay your care fees too.
  • pollypennypollypenny Forumite
    29.3K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    So you don't want the house to 'go to the government ', OP. however, you would like the government to pay for your relative's care.

    We, who pay tax, are 'the government' to all intents and purposes. I do not want to pay tax so that you can inherit.

    My father paid his own way and my sisters and I inherited what was left. It's unfair to expect someone else to pay.
    Member #14 of SKI-ers club

    Words, words, they're all we have to go by!.

    (Pity they are mangled by this autocorrect!)
  • But then you wouldn't get the same choice or standard of care.
    What would be the point in living 'hand to mouth' all your life and making sure you had no property or saving just in case you had to go into care at some stage.
  • So the idea is then that you 'work hard all your life, pay tax, buy a home you can leave to your children' whilst someone elses children subsidise your care?
  • edited 30 December 2012 at 7:26PM
    nikkim1990nikkim1990 Forumite
    12 Posts
    edited 30 December 2012 at 7:26PM
    Of course we expect they will have to contribute towards their care but after they have contributed their life savings for some reason we expected the government may offer some contribution after they have paid into a system all their lives. Seems like the best idea is to never own your own home or work and save as there seems to be no reward for doing so.
  • I was asking for advice not an opinion
  • I wonder if there is a happy medium of sorts? (not to go too off topic)
    Can one plan for this situation decades in advance?
    Say you don't want your assets taken from you by the Government when you get old and have to go into care, and you are an 18 year old planning ahead. How might one do this?
    Maybe working hard and saving for a number of years (say between the ages of 18 to 40).
    Put savings in a safe and in offshore accounts etc etc?
    Then claim to have nothing, have your care paid by the Government, and have a good few K to give to relatives and to spend on Whiskey or whatever else it is that old men like.
    Curious....
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

Is your local HSBC closing?

114 branches to shut in 2023

MSE News

Advent Competitions

The countdown is on

MSE Forum

Baileys £10 for 1L at Tesco

When you scan your Clubcard

MSE Deals