Really worried about my mother's home and my brother

Doody

Hi all,

I know the details haven't all been published yet but I am extremely worried about what will happen to my younger brother in the event of the Tory proposal to make people sell their homes for social care.

Our mother is disabled and is needing more and more care. About six years ago my brother, who is most likely autistic, gave up his job and accommodation to move in with her and take care of her. The deal was that he would inherit the bulk of her estate when the inevitable happens. He's taken on the responsibility willingly and lovingly but her needs are increasing and they are starting to think of other support for her.

I can't do much being 200 odd miles away and with a very complicated family situation here. If she does get any sort of extra care, or even need to go into residential care, where would that leave him? He's 60 this year and had been expecting to carry on living there for the foreseeable future himself. He has no savings, employable skills and finding a new home for him would be hard.

The proposals I have seen refer to the home not having to be sold until a spouse living there also passed away. Nothing about adult children.

Our parents spent all their money on adaptations to make the house easier for our mother to get around, and for her life as a deaf person to be made as easy as possible. They've paid taxes and NI contributions all their lives and did not expect that they could not leave an inheritance to the child who needed it.

There is very disturbing information going around about the financial products meant to help in this situation. I'm not expecting answers, just wanted to worry 'out loud' on my keyboard.

gettingtheresometime

Well I guess the time to start worrying is if/when the Tories win.

You don't say how much the home is worth ...it fall under the proposed limit?

The other question to ask is even if these proposals didn't happen would the property be suitable for your brother to continue to live in on his own.

I have to say I agree though with the principles of what is being proposed

troubleinparadise

There is very little difference to the situation that exists at present.

If you need care and have assets over a certain threshold you will need to pay for that care, whether in your home or residentially.

There are certain exemptions where the house is disregarded for financial assessment - and your mother's situation may fall into that category.

Do some research on care options and the financial aspects - Age UK has very good information. This is something you need to look into whoever wins the election - and don't believe politicians who make hollow promises to make care free - that is impossible.

onomatopoeia99

The proposals as I understand them:

Now : You can keep approx £20k of total assets if residential care is needed. If you have more you have to pay.
Proposal : You can keep £100k of assets if residential care or in home care is needed. If you have more you have to pay.

So better for people needing to move into a residential care home, or their beneficiaries, potentially worse for those needing care in their own homes.

What would your brother do if your mother needs permanent residential care? The council would want to sell the house then anyway under the current regulations. Happened with my gran, they forced my mum, who was the guardian appointed by the court of protection, to sell gran's flat to pay for the care home fees, while gran was still alive.

Keep_pedalling

As he is already a live in career, there is unlikely to any need for LA provided home care so those charges against the home should not arise. If residential care is required then things will be slightly better than they are currently as self funding will cease once assets drop to £100k rather than £23k

Savvy_Sue

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

What would your brother do if your mother needs permanent residential care? The council would want to sell the house then anyway under the current regulations.

Actually I think under the current regulations a sale cannot be forced if someone else over 60 is living in it.

troubleinparadise

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

The proposals as I understand them
What would your brother do if your mother needs permanent residential care? The council would want to sell the house then anyway under the current regulations. Happened with my gran, they forced my mum, who was the guardian appointed by the court of protection, to sell gran's flat to pay for the care home fees, while gran was still alive.

The council does not sell the house - the attorney or deputy acting on behalf of the donor/person in care meets the bill for the care fees by selling the person's property (assuming there are no funds in savings etc)

Some councils or care homes at present will set up a deferred payment scheme whereby a charge is placed against a property and the debt is repaid once the property is sold; this is also one of the proposed changes according to the Conservative manifesto.

This is a very common scenario already - a person goes into residential care, and the then empty property is sold and the proceeds are used to pay the care fees.

If there is someone also living in the house then different criteria are applied, detail of which has not been given yet.

I suspect that there will be more changes before the final rules are arrived at, and those will change as time goes on anyway. One of the upsides is that the lower capital threshold is being raised to £100,000 - so that amount is protected and cannot be used for care fees, unlike the present limit of £23,250, when you still have to pay a tariff down to £14,250.

However, any number of these proposals may never happen, so rather than panic it is better to read up on the present rules and work out how they might apply in your situation and how best to deal with what you can. Here's a link to the Age UK fact sheet:

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/Documents/EN-GB/Factsheets/FS10_Paying_for_permanent_residential_care_fcs.pdf?dtrk=true#page18

Back to Doody's OP, and worrying out loud - I had no idea of care fees and so on until I became responsible for my declining mum's affairs - and it was a shock! But I came to realise that I couldn't fight the system, and that my mum's savings were there for a rainy day - and this was that rainy day. She was lucky enough to be able to afford to go into a lovely home of our choosing, rather than being given no choice... that was a help at an awful time. And only her to think about - I can understand why you are worried about your brother and what the unknown changes might mean.

peachyprice

troubleinparadise wrote: »

became responsible for my declining mum's affairs - and it was a shock! But I came to realise that I couldn't fight the system, and that my mum's savings were there for a rainy day - and this was that rainy day. She was lucky enough to be able to afford to go into a lovely home of our choosing, rather than being given no choice... that was a help at an awful time. And only her to think about - I can understand why you are worried about your brother and what the unknown changes might mean.

This 100%.

I know that this isn't in response to your question OP, but this is one fact that is totally overlooked by those parents who want to keep everything for their children to inherit while expecting the state to pick up the tab and greedy children wanting to protect their inheritance. I wouldn't want a penny of inheritance if it meant my mum ended her days in a lovely care home.

Doody

Taking on board what everyone has said, and rather relieved that under current arrangements a person over 60 will be protected. I had thought the other person n the house had to be a spouse.

We had kind of taken on board that everything would change of she went into residential care but our mother wanted above all to stay at home and be cared for there.

She needs constant attention and it really is draining on my brother. She wakes in the night and needs help to get to the toilet, she needs help for almost everything. If someone could come in and give him a break he would be able to support her better and we would all feel confident about this going on for longer. He gave up everything to do this for her. Knowing he could carry on living there, in my opinion is a fair enough hope and expectation. We'd always known that for residential care her home would probably end up having to be sold but as she really does not want that and we all want to support her to was very much a last option. But if she had to sell up or take out a dodgy equity release scheme just to get the help from someone during the day to give my brother a break, that still seems really unfair.

This post on FB has rather alarmed me, I did see the original posted and know it is genuine.

Copied-pasted with explicit permission to share far and wide, so please, share (copy-paste)
"Hello 3am. A second, worried sick, sleepless night knowing that, with their so called social care policy, "Theresa May's Team" will be coming to take our house soon after June 9th.
A lifetime's work paying off the mortgage. All our life savings spent on making the house suitable to support disability needs for the rest of our lives. All the blood, sweat and tears for nothing. It will all have to be signed away to some sort of 'equity release scheme' to pay for "social care".
They're softening this hammer blow by promising that the house won't be sold during our lifetime. Apparently 'insurance products' will be available to cover the cost of "social care" with the provider collecting their premium by having lien on your property after your death. Early indications are that, as an incentive to develop suitable products, institutions have been promised that there will be no upper limit on the premium charged. In theory there will be a £100k floor, so that your grieving relatives will get something. In practise, the institutions holding lien will be able to force a quick sale below market value to get their hands on your remaining cash - so expect nothing (sorry kids, we tried).
Expect a feeding frenzy as the finance industry gets it's grubby nose into this highly lucrative trough. Expect some 'products' that are a total rip-off, and I wouldn't give many years before another PPI style scandal breaks.
I've paid tax since I was 18, lots of it. I never begrudged my contribution to a society that looked after its sick, disabled and vulnerable with the safety net they needed; but I am pretty bloody furious to find that when WE need societies help, the safety net has been whipped away and we're left to hit the floor - all because my lovely wife drew the multiple sclerosis straw in life's lottery.
It just occurred to me that if people are now going to have their assets stripped to pay for their own "social care", then it's not really social care any more, is it? Theresa May says this is fair because it means that the young don't pay for the old, but if the old can't pass on their assets to the young, that's not really true.
Any one of us is only a critical illness or life changing accident away from needing care, so just hope that you or any of your lived ones never get sick folks."

elsien

Have your brother and mum had a needs assessment under the care act? He can request this himself - the information will be on his local authority website.
This will look as his needs as a carer as well as mum's support needs. It is possible to have carers coming in even when there is a family carer and also for occasional respite to be offered (although this is harder to get.) A relative had a week in a care home to give his main carer a break. How much she would have to pay towards it at the moment would depend on the financial assessment. Again, the local authority would have information on this.

If he doesn't ask, or minimises the impact that caring is having on him, then he probably won't get anything, so may need support from family to explain his things really are. Sometimes you have to shout to get what you need and carers can find that difficult.

Pixie5740

That's an alarmist piece of !!!!!!!!. No one will be coming to take away their home 9th May. The money to pay for social care has to come from somewhere so why not from the wealth people have accumulated during their lifetime? What's the point of saving for a rainy day if you never put the bloody umbrella up?

Inheritance isn't a god given right. In fact inheritance just widens the gap between the rich and poor.