Claiming money from a reg. charity.

ANGLICANPAT

Im helping a pensioner friend with his finances.Nothing elaborate, just simple stuff. He has mild dementia ,but Dr judges he has capacity as its memory not reasoning thats 'gone' . He's paying for his NH care , and has at current rates, enough for about 5/6yrs worth of care once he adds his property sale money to the kitty. He is convinced he wont last above a year as he has heart problems and is very frail (hes mid eighties) but doesnt know of course now hes well looked after.

He has left all his money in his will, to a favourite long supported charity . Its just dawned on him that if he is wrong about his life expectancy, the NH will eat funds away quite rapidly , and he's upset the charity may get next to nothing . He's asking me to help with a £60k cheque now for his charity , which of course would mean he would be self funding for 2 years less.

If he did happen to live beyond the three years he funded himself , would he still be accused of self deprivation? I think he would, but hes of the opinion that a Council wouldnt try and claw it back from a small registered charity as funds would probably not be available anyway? What does anyone reckon?

Archi_Bald

Clear case of deprivation of assets. Disgusting.

le_loup

Don't rely upon it.
No clawing back needed - they just wouldn't fund him.

ANGLICANPAT

le_loup wrote: »

Don't rely upon it.
No clawing back needed - they just wouldn't fund him.

Thats what what is worrying me , what would happen though, would someone that age be turned on the streets?

Linton

Could be worth looking at an Immediate Needs Annuity (try Google) where you pay an insurance company to take the risk of you living too long.

colsten

He seems to think it is ok for him to decide that other people should give £60K to his pet charity if he runs out of money. Tell him it is not ok. The charity, if they have any principles and ethics, would probably decline a pre-mortem donation from him, anyway.

To think the LA would stop short from winding up a charity if need be is naive. As le loup says, the LA can also refuse to fund care for someone who has been found depriving themselves of assets.

I must say I am surprised that you even ask the question / consider to aid him with this scheme.

Glen_Clark

Ask him to bear in mind that the British Taxpayer already gives vast amounts to foreign charities. Presumably because politicians would rather go abroad on expenses paid junkets to dish out our money, than go to food banks and homeless shelters in Britain. You may recall that Plebgate Andrew Mitchells job was going abroad to dole out taxpayers money to his pet charities. Maybe thats why he got used to people treating him like Royalty.
The point I am making is that he should not feel a duty to take even more taxpayers money so he can give his to charity.
Bear in mind where taxpayers money comes from. Even the guy sleeping in a cardboard box on the street pays taxes (like VAT on takeaway food)

ANGLICANPAT

Im not prepared to continue a prolonged ethical debate over this - that would be another forum. . What I will say is that the gentleman in question has lived frugally and within his means all his life. He chose to save for his charity (having no family ) rather than go to football matches, foreign holidays ,posh restaurants or expensive gear. He has paid NI all his working life, and believed the Govt when they said that in exchange ,they would care for him all his life. As far as he is concerned , they have lied to him .

It is not as straightforward /easy as you might think Colsten, sensitively handling the wishes of an elderly person in his position who has already made big financial sacrifices to ensure his future plans and now feels totally cheated ,when he can see others have lived the high life , spent spent spent and then get everything free .

In his reasoning, re-budgeting for paying for three years NH care he considers he's already been promised would be free , and giving away the value of two to charity, is a fair compromise after hes been 'misled' . He also thinks it couldnt be the case that having given generously to a charity all your life you had to stop just because you went into a NH .

Im not comfortable dismissing his wishes and beliefs without giving them due thought and consideration . He might be elderly and out of date with his politics and views, but in my opinion , he deserves the respect of having his views properly thought through , regardless of mine . My concern is primarily what the outcome would be as even if I declined to help , he may well find a way of going ahead anyway. My initial view was, as I said, that it would be viewed as self deprivation, regardless of the circumstances , and replies have confirmed that , so I have my answer. Thanks for folks contributions.

Mojisola

ANGLICANPAT wrote: »

It is not as straightforward /easy as you might think Colsten, sensitively handling the wishes of an elderly person in his position who has already made big financial sacrifices to ensure his future plans and now feels totally cheated ,when he can see others have lived the high life , spent spent spent and then get everything free .

In his reasoning, re-budgeting for paying for three years NH care he considers he's already been promised would be free ,

He's lucky to have someone like you to help.

It's become a common myth but the welfare state never promised to pay for people to live in residential care for free until the end of their lives. Elderly people who weren't looked after by family members ended in very basic hospital-type wards until their deaths - not a way that any of us would like to spend our last years.

colsten

ANGLICANPAT wrote: »

My concern is primarily what the outcome would be as even if I declined to help , he may well find a way of going ahead anyway.

Perhaps, instead of becoming an accomplice in his deprivation scheme, you should explain to him what NI contributions are for.
https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/what-national-insurance-is-for

ANGLICANPAT

colsten wrote: »

Perhaps, instead of becoming an accomplice in his deprivation scheme, you should explain to him what NI contributions are for.
https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/what-national-insurance-is-for

Like a lot of people his age, it appears his understanding and expectation is based more on the below .Im not claiming he is correct,I know little about the Beveridge Report (till I looked it up just now) . Im saying Im looking into it to see where he's coming from ,and to try and handle (or not) his wishes with empathy. Nor do I want him or a charity in a difficult position in the future.

---

Churchill gave a broadcast on 21 March 1943 titled “After the War”, where he warned the public not to impose “great new expenditure on the State without any relation to the circumstances which might prevail at the time” and said there would be “a four-year plan” of post-war reconstruction “to cover five or six large measures of a practical character” which would be put to the electorate after the war and implemented by a new government. These measures were “national compulsory insurance for all classes for all purposes from the cradle to the grave”; the abolition of unemployment by government policies which would “exercise a balancing influence upon development which can be turned on or off as circumstances require”; “a broadening field for State ownership and enterprise”; new housing; major reforms to education; largely expanded health and welfare services.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beveridge_Report

Looking at that its not too difficult to see why the folk of the era might translate that into thinking that their lifetime of paying insurance would take care of their welfare needs when their brains/bodies failed them sufficiently as to not be able to care for themselves. (I wouldnt mind betting that in any Q&A sessions politicians would not have corrected that understanding either)

Anyway, thats me done on the subject.