Will it look like my nan is avoiding paying for care costs.. Advice needed. Pls !!

margaretclare

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

From the original post, I read it that she owned a house, sold it and and bought a new one nearer her family 10 years ago. We don't actually know when she handed her new house over so the period of ownership could well be a lot less than 10 years.

Yes, she did all that 10 years ago but the house she bought hasn't been in her own name but that of her son, who has since died.

I read it as 'she bought a house but put it into her son's name'. I don't see any suggestion of delay.

So she sold her home and due to my grandad doing everything with regards to sorting out bills she transferred the house into my dad's name (her son) as she couldn't cope with sorting bills etc out as she never had to

jackyann

In so many situations like this I find myself both irritated by a woman who handed over her finances (like a man who never learned to cook) and sympathy for someone who just followed the normal behaviour in their circle.
Though it doesn't take a genius to realise that there will be a reckoning sometime, I am never astonished by how far people can bury their heads in the sand!

It reminds me of Katherine Whitehorn's saying about division of labour between the sexes: it tends to be defined, not by what you think you should do, but by what you can get away with NOT doing!

missbiggles1

jackyann wrote: »

In so many situations like this I find myself both irritated by a woman who handed over her finances (like a man who never learned to cook) and sympathy for someone who just followed the normal behaviour in their circle.
Though it doesn't take a genius to realise that there will be a reckoning sometime, I am never astonished by how far people can bury their heads in the sand!

It reminds me of Katherine Whitehorn's saying about division of labour between the sexes: it tends to be defined, not by what you think you should do, but by what you can get away with NOT doing!

I think that's the crucial point.

My parents would've been older than the woman in question and in their very working class culture it was the women who handled all the finances, the man handing over his pay packet and being given back his pocket money with the rest being used to run the house. In their case, my mum died first and it was my dad who was totally lost, never even having had a bank account in his life.

There used to be very different practices for working and middle class couples when it came to handling money.

securityguy

"There used to be very different practices for working and middle class couples when it came to handling money"

Indeed. Loosely, working class men who were paid weekly in cash gave it to their wives to pay the rent, while middle class men who were paid monthly by cheque or (from about the 1960s onwards) BACS kept it in a bank account to pay the mortgage. The key distinction is that for people of the generation currently in their 80s it was relatively unusual for a married woman to operate a bank account.

jackyann

I think you are broadly correct (although of course there are exceptions)

Also, in what might be called the more skilled "upper working class" (can't you tell we're British!) it would be more usual for a woman to have some skill in handling finances - my mother had been a book-keeper for example. I knew a lot of skilled working men: plumbers, bricklayers, electricians etc. who ran their own businesses because of the skills their wives brought to the enterprise.

It is interesting that in each group took some pride in how they handled finances: working class men thought they were doing right by handing ll their money to their wives and getting some "spends" back; middle class men thought they were "looking after" their wives.

That is why I feel for people who have been caught out in later life, whilst also thinking they should have taken charge when they could!