Nice Headache

noh

Why is this not fair?
If the person was not in care he would be paying living expenses such as council tax electricity food etc. The contribution he is now being asked for is to cover these expenses.
If care was totally free to all those that required it taxes would have to be increased.

Zara said "well it doesnt sound right to me he been working hard all his life paying taxes, & now he cant even get free care when this goverment is more then willing to give out handouts to single mums, assylum seekers & gods knows who else!!!!"
If the single mother or asylum seeker had £46000 they wouldn't get "handouts"

Nigel

kogsawelly

Rehire, For most older people their property is their main asset for which they have worked and saved most of their lives, as your father has. The thought of losing this to pay for care when others who were perhaps less prudent receive free care on the State is, to many, so inequitable that they consider giving it away in case the need for care arises. Unfortunately, as your father is already receiving care and the house has been sold, there is very little you can do about it.
You are understandably unhappy.
I don't know your circumstances but for whatever reason, your father has found himself in sheltered accomodation. Providing he is being properly looked after and seems happy, you should take solice in that.
Karl.

Techno

He could always spend it - as long as he is buying things for himself he is not giving it away - nice ferrarri outside the sheltered housing complex would certainly draw admiring looks!!
Seriously though - it just isn't feasible for everyone's needs to be met under our current system that's why people are asked to contribute - the Scots have tried free care and it is almost bankrupting some of their Local Authorities. And before anyone starts on the well what do I pay my council tax for - Council tax is a small fraction of what is spent - in my Local Authority area they spend £90 million year on education and £50 million on social care services (I think) imagine what that would go up to if everyone received free care. We are living in a society with a growing older population and a shrinking younger one so not only are there less people to contribute to general taxes so less coming in but there will also be fewer people to provide the care (both paid and unpaid) which means it's going to cost more (supply and demand)

ZARA

noh wrote: »

Why is this not fair?
If the person was not in care he would be paying living expenses such as council tax electricity food etc. The contribution he is now being asked for is to cover these expenses.
If care was totally free to all those that required it taxes would have to be increased.

Zara said "well it doesnt sound right to me he been working hard all his life paying taxes, & now he cant even get free care when this goverment is more then willing to give out handouts to single mums, assylum seekers & gods knows who else!!!!"
If the single mother or asylum seeker had £46000 they wouldn't get "handouts"

Nigel

thats what u think i know better, my neighbours absolutely lovelly family i couldnt wish for better neighbours, cooks a brill curry!!, anyway living in a 4 bed house for free, 57 plate car for free, she is claiming as a sinle parent when her husband lives there also, have 5 kids, all well dressed in designer gear & still manages to send £500 odd home every month,

Flynn_2

rehire wrote: »

My father who’s 84 and lives in sheltered accommodation has recently come into some money £46k due to sale of his house. Due to him now having this amount of money and being over the £6k threshold he now has to pay for the things that were provided by the council free of charge. I mentioned to him that why not put X amount of pounds into one of my accounts to bring him back under the £6k threshold but he says he’s been told he can’t do that. Has anyone any ideas as how to get him back under the £6k threshold?

Rehire, many of the people paying taxes to provide your father with various benefits will themselves be pensioners with an income just high enough to pay tax. Why should they be expected to do that when they may have far less than £46,000 themselves despite working all their lives?

Furthermore, at 84 it is quite likely that the money will eventually come to you. Even less reason why they should pay for unneeded support which could eventually end up in your pocket. One option for you would to look after your father yourself, which is what most families did when we were less dependent on state handouts.

minimadtrix

ZARA wrote: »

thats what u think i know better, my neighbours absolutely lovelly family i couldnt wish for better neighbours, cooks a brill curry!!, anyway living in a 4 bed house for free, 57 plate car for free, she is claiming as a sinle parent when her husband lives there also, have 5 kids, all well dressed in designer gear & still manages to send £500 odd home every month,

Have you reported them?

Benefit Fraud Hotline 0800 854 440

or online reporting form https://secure.dwp.gov.uk/benefitfraud/

Nick_C

jem16 wrote: »

It doesn't matter how he gets rid of the money, it would still be classed as deprivation of assets and the council could claim it back.

Not strictly true. Its not the "how", its the "why". The rule is regulation 43 of the Housing Benefit Regulations (and similar regulations relating to other means tested benefits). The regulation says "A claimant shall be treated as possessing capital of which he has deprived himself for the purpose of securing entitlement to housing benefit or increasing the amount of that benefit."

The key point (and there is case law on this) is the reason why a claimant's capital diminishes. It is perfectly OK for a (potential) claimant to buy a car because he has mobility needs, and for a relative to then drive it for him. The reason for buying the car must be to meet the mobility needs, not deliberately deprive himself of capital in order to qualify for benefits. Similarly, claimants are free to spend their money on holidays, personal possessions etc. Personal possessions are not counted as capital. Indeed, why would someone in their 80s want to hoard their capital - they can't take it with them, they should be making their lives as comfortable as possible. If your father is a widower, and cannot travel alone as he is frail, I don't see why he shouldn't take family members on holiday with him to provide him with assistance and personal care. A world cruise is probably out of the question though as there may be a limit to how long he can be absent from his sheltered accommodation.

Although capital over £6k affects entitlement to benefit, it does not immediately remove entitlement. Between £6K and £16K, each excess £250 of capital (or part thereof) is deemed to generate a notional income of £1 per week. So if your father's capital drops to just below £16K, he may be entitled to Housing/Council Tax benefit again, but he will be assumed to have an income from his £15,999 savings of £40 per week, which will reduce his entitlement to benefits (but probably not eliminate it).

In the meantime, he mustn't spend his money just to qualify for benefit, but he should certainly not be afraid to spend his money to make his old age comfortable and enjoyable, and he should be able to claim help again as and when his savings diminish below £16K. I would suggest however that he keeps a record and receipts of how his money is going to support any furure claim for benefit.

anticlaus105

rehire wrote: »

as i don't see why someone who has paid to the system all his life should now in his twilight years have to use what little money he's managed to accumulate paying for care. i as a tax payer have no problem in my taxes going toward the upkeep of this type of person. I'm only sorry that you don't feel the same

I know someone in a similar situation to you. They are more annoyed that their inheritance is gradually draining away rather that the old dear having to spend her money on care after paying tax all her life tho. I don’t think she is too bothered tho as she gets looked after whatever.

Flynn_2

anticlaus105 wrote: »

I know someone in a similar situation to you. They are more annoyed that their inheritance is gradually draining away rather that the old dear having to spend her money on care after paying tax all her life tho. I don’t think she is too bothered tho as she gets looked after whatever.

One of many I think. They seem to think that the state should care for their parents and the rest of us should pay for it so that they can pocket whatever money their parents have. They want the cash but not the traditional responsibilities.

I'm happy for my taxes to pay for those in real need but not for their comfortable children to gain money by avoiding their responsilities and have personally have done nothing to earn.

Gorgeous_George

What you really want to do is protect his money so that you can have it when he dies. Or even before.

You are not looking out for your dad but for yourself.

He should spend HIS money enjoying HIS final years.

GG