Question on avoiding residential care costs

Mummy_to_3_daughters

Madam_Jo_Jo wrote: »

Hello

My dad has recently received an email from a company called Heritage Estate Planners. Apparently, they offer a report that claims to offer foolproof advice on protecting assets against local councils confiscating homes to pay for residential care. You can obtain this report by paying £56 (they offer a 90 day money back guarantee).

This is of course of great interest to my dad (and I) but having done some research, neither of us can find out any concrete information about the company.

Has anyone ever heard or dealt with them before? Does anyone really know the answer to avoiding residential care costs?

Any information would be greatly received.

Mojisola

Madam_Jo_Jo wrote: »

My dad has recently received an email from a company called Heritage Estate Planners. Apparently, they offer a report that claims to offer foolproof advice on protecting assets against local councils confiscating homes to pay for residential care.

As councils don't 'confiscate homes to pay for care', I'd wouldn't trust them at all.

If you have enough capital to be self-funding, the council leave you to get on with it.

Most people don't ever need residential care. Those who do and can afford to pay their way get to chose their care home. Those who are funded by the council have to go where the council puts them.

Mummy_to_3_daughters

Hi


I wondered if anyone out there could help me please? I need some advice.
My father has been contacted by a company (of which I do not know - as of yet - the name) who want to help me avoid residential care costs. My parents are in their seventies, mum is disabled and dad has breathing problems.
Dad has not signed anything but (I think) has been promised a way of securing his home against care costs (should either/both of them need it in the future). The cost for this service is 5% of their assets.
What is the best way forward for dad? Who should he see? What questions do I need to ask?
This is so difficult for me and I feel out of my depth. The person is calling back to see my dad next week and I will be there to listen. The decision is my mum and dad's but I feel they are now vulnerable adults and easily persuaded.
I would value any advice. Thank you for reading.

Mojisola

Mummy_to_3_daughters wrote: »

My father has been contacted by a company (of which I do not know - as of yet - the name) who want to help me avoid residential care costs. My parents are in their seventies, mum is disabled and dad has breathing problems.

Dad has not signed anything but (I think) has been promised a way of securing his home against care costs (should either/both of them need it in the future). The cost for this service is 5% of their assets.

Ask your parents not to sign anything at the meeting. Any reputable company will be happy for you all to have the information and go over it again before committing themselves.

What is the best way forward for dad? Who should he see? What questions do I need to ask?

This is so difficult for me and I feel out of my depth. The person is calling back to see my dad next week and I will be there to listen.

Don't just listen - tell them that you are going to record the meeting and have your phone/digi recorder in clear view. Ask the salesman to state his name and the company he works for.

The decision is my mum and dad's but I feel they are now vulnerable adults and easily persuaded.

Presumably your parents want to protect some of their money so that you can inherit from them so they shouldn't mind you having a say about what they're doing.

Only a small percentage of people end up in care homes. Of those who do go in, figures I've seen say that the average stay is under two years (because people are usually quite frail by the time they go into care). Of course, others live for 10+ years - that's the gamble with averages.

If one of a couple goes into care, the value of the house that the other one will be living in is not taken into account when the financial assessment is made. It's only if both need care or the surviving spouse has to go into care that the house is included.

Most couples own their house as 'joint tenants' and when one dies, the other automatically owns the whole property. One way of preserving some inheritance is to change the house ownership to 'tenants in common' so that each owner owns half the property. On the first death, half the house can be left to someone other than the surviving spouse (for instance, the children).

If the survivor then needs residential care, only half the value of the house is theirs and that's all that can be used to pay for care.

AgeUK has some useful information on paying for care, etc. It's worth reading through them.

jamesd

Mummy_to_3_daughters wrote: »

My father has been contacted by a company (of which I do not know - as of yet - the name) who want to help me avoid residential care costs. My parents are in their seventies, mum is disabled and dad has breathing problems.
Dad has not signed anything but (I think) has been promised a way of securing his home against care costs (should either/both of them need it in the future). The cost for this service is 5% of their assets.
What is the best way forward for dad? Who should he see? What questions do I need to ask?

Ignore the firm. It's too late.

To avoid the are costs you need to do the planning before there is any personal expectation f a need for care. You have described medical conditions which mean that both parents have significant expectation of a need for care. So it's too late.

What would happen now if they tried to avoid paying is that the council would use "deprivation of assets" rules to take whatever they give away to avoid costs, or would just treat them as still having it.

Mummy_to_3_daughters wrote: »

The person is calling back to see my dad next week and I will be there to listen. The decision is my mum and dad's but I feel they are now vulnerable adults and easily persuaded.

They are vulnerable and it's too late. If the person visiting says anything else they are lying. No harm to tell us what scams they have dreamed up but that won't change the answer that it's too late now. If you have a recorder, take it with you and record the meeting so you have evidence of the false claims. Be sure that the health condition of both parents is discussed early in the meeting so that the sales person knows that deprivation of assets rules will apply and specifically mention deprivation of assets rules, asking how this scheme proposes to avoid them.

Even if the planning was successful, do they really want to end up in the lowest price bidder that the council can find? It's often not that hard to actually pay for the care. depends on how much money they have. Perhaps better to discuss this here so we can come up with a plan to do that. The plan might even cost less than 5% of their current assets!

An independent financial adviser is the person to go for this. Visit unbiased.co.uk to find one if nobody you know has experience of a good one. One thing the IFA will tell you is that it's too late now there's an expectation of a need for care and they may also mention that planning specifically to avoid paying for care also means it will fail, there has to be another reason. What an IFA can do is work on a plan to pay for care if it is needed.

Mojisola

Mojisola wrote: »

Most couples own their house as 'joint tenants' and when one dies, the other automatically owns the whole property. One way of preserving some inheritance is to change the house ownership to 'tenants in common' so that each owner owns half the property. On the first death, half the house can be left to someone other than the surviving spouse (for instance, the children).

If the survivor then needs residential care, only half the value of the house is theirs and that's all that can be used to pay for care.

jamesd wrote: »

Ignore the firm. It's too late.

To avoid the are costs you need to do the planning before there is any personal expectation f a need for care. You have described medical conditions which mean that both parents have significant expectation of a need for care. So it's too late.

What would happen now if they tried to avoid paying is that the council would use "deprivation of assets" rules to take whatever they give away to avoid costs, or would just treat them as still having it.

I don't think changing the way you own your home and leaving your share to someone other than your spouse will be overturned.

Do you have evidence to the contrary?

xylophone

I don't see any problem in joint tenants changing ownership of their home to tenants-in-common.

This is a perfectly reasonable decision as it permits people to direct, via their wills, where they would like their share of their lifetimes' assets to go.

It would not prevent the council from putting some kind of charge on the share of the home that belonged to the person going into care and of course if both went into care, then all assets would be taken into consideration.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/aug/28/tenancy-common-care-home-fee-solution

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-1594984/Tenants-common.html

Mojisola

xylophone wrote: »

It would not prevent the council from putting some kind of charge on the share of the home that belonged to the person going into care

If a spouse is still living in the house, its value has to be disregarded so the council couldn't put a charge on the house.

jamesd

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't think changing the way you own your home and leaving your share to someone other than your spouse will be overturned.

Deprivation of assets. Each person formerly had potentially the whole value. A transfer when a care need was clear is an invitation to a council to treat the change of ownership as if it had never happened. Whether this will happen will depend on the council and whether it thinks it can successfully argue that the purpose of the chance was to avoid paying for care.

No harm to try tenants in common since it is cheap to do, a bit of form filling.

One issue here is that both may need care at the same time, since one needing care may deprive the other of a necessary carer, forcing them into care as well.

Also good, though, to investigate the viability of funding a place that isn't the lowest bidder.

Mojisola

jamesd wrote: »

Deprivation of assets. Each person formerly had potentially the whole value. A transfer when a care need was clear is an invitation to a council to treat the change of ownership as if it had never happened. Whether this will happen will depend on the council and whether it thinks it can successfully argue that the purpose of the chance was to avoid paying for care.

Have you ever known it to happen?