Really worried about my mother's home and my brother

Primrose

I!m unsure how long your brother has been living with your mother and been her carer. You would need legal advice on this but if it has been for some years there may be a way that a proportion of your mother,s house equity can legitimately been transferred to your brother as "payment in kind" for having been her carer. In this case it may not be defined as a deprivation of assets. After all, a live in carer would have had to be paid. i see no reason why a relative should not be equally remunerated, especially if they have given up other employment to do the caring.

Edited : See he has been living with your mither for six years. in that case Inwould reckon that six year's worth of his previous salary should at least represent his minimum equity i the house value as a legitimate recompense. Has he been receive any state benefits during this time?

Pa_Ja

Doody wrote: »

There are meant to be very clear diagnostic paths to an autism assessment, in reality there are not. With my support, my brother saw his GP, who referred him on, to a very unsatisfactory interview with a woman who advised him to self refer to MIND. Totally useless. So we went back to the GP, saw someone else, who referred him on elsewhere. Who wrote a letter about him having autistic traits with another referral. Which lead to another appointment with someone who was very nice, and then totally disappeared.

Bear in mind my brother doesn't push for himself and has social difficulties, and that I am hundreds of miles away with a husband with persistent PEs and other health problems, a terminally ill MIL and a son with autistic and mental health related difficulties I find it hard to push for this. It's a long story, but saying go for a diagnosis is not as easy as one would hope it would be.

Getting his name on the deeds could be a very wise move. We had been advised against this because of the willful deprivation of assets issue but will take further advice.

I hear you. I have a close family member who demonstrated traits his whole life and was let down by A) the system. But by the family for not being forceful enough.
You'll have an appointment, maybe 2, that looks promising only for progress to be halted and seemingly disappear.
I appreciate it''s difficult for you to stay involved given your own circumstances however you're going to have to pick-up were both aforementioned parties let him down before only to safeguard his future.
Keep contacting GP's/Social works, etc...
It'll hopefully be worth it in the end.

Pixie5740

IAmWales wrote: »

And for all those praising the Tory dementia tax ...

They've done a complete u turn. They're now saying there will be a cap, though they don't know what that will be.

In summary, they don't have the first clue of what their policy is.

It's not praising it as much as accepting that there isn't a bottomless pit of money available. If we want to provide free care to everyone in their later years where is that money going to come from? Why not from the accumulated wealth of those requiring care it's not as though the the receiver of the care has something better to spend the money on or really earned most of that wealth. As an example my parents bought their house in 1984 for £24,000. That house is now worth 10 times that easily and they didn't have to do anything to earn that increase. My grandfather had dementia and required residential care. I'm fairly certain that my father is starting to show signs of dementia. Rather than hoard money to pass on to me I would rather he spent some money enjoying his twilight years and then if needed had the best possible care available to him.

I suppose rather than using the accumulated wealth of those needing care we could raise money through inheritance tax instead. That way everyone could chip in instead of primarily just those with dementia. No threshold and IHT is set as 90%. That will ensure that either the money goes back into the public purse by either encouraging us to spend our money whilst alive or collected when we pop our clogs.

gettingtheresometime

happyandcontented wrote: »

In what way is it going off at a tangent? There are two sides to every argument and Sarah is presenting her opinion of the policy behind the OP. Whether you agree or disagree she is entitled to have her say.

Yes she is but the way this thread is going it's more akin to a thread in DT rather than helping the OP

IAmWales wrote: »

And for all those praising the Tory dementia tax ...

They've done a complete u turn. They're now saying there will be a cap, though they don't know what that will be.

In summary, they don't have the first clue of what their policy is.

I don't know who I'm going to vote for at the moment but I do know that if Labour made such a U-turn, the Conservatives would be all over them like a rash.

IAmWales

Pixie5740 wrote: »

It's not praising it as much as accepting that there isn't a bottomless pit of money available. If we want to provide free care to everyone in their later years where is that money going to come from? Why not from the accumulated wealth of those requiring care it's not as though the the receiver of the care has something better to spend the money on or really earned most of that wealth. As an example my parents bought their house in 1984 for £24,000. That house is now worth 10 times that easily and they didn't have to do anything to earn that increase. My grandfather had dementia and required residential care. I'm fairly certain that my father is starting to show signs of dementia. Rather than hoard money to pass on to me I would rather he spent some money enjoying his twilight years and then if needed had the best possible care available to him.

I suppose rather than using the accumulated wealth of those needing care we could raise money through inheritance tax instead. That way everyone could chip in instead of primarily just those with dementia. No threshold and IHT is set as 90%. That will ensure that either the money goes back into the public purse by either encouraging us to spend our money whilst alive or collected when we pop our clogs.

No one has suggested that IHT should be set at 90%, nor that such a high level will be required. What a silly thing to say.

Pixie5740

IAmWales wrote: »

No one has suggested that IHT should be set at 90%, nor that such a high level will be required. What a silly thing to say.

Why is it silly? I'm all for the raising of IHT but that's another discussion altogether. I'm just saying that the money has to come from somewhere. Residential care or even community care in your own home isn't cheap.

happyandcontented

Many pensioners pay tax, so raise the rate of Income tax for everyone ot fund the shortfall in care costs. Or mandate that everyone be they on benefits or in work has to pay into an insurance policy for care costs. Not palatable options but alternatives to the policy on the table.

IAmWales

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

Yes she is but the way this thread is going it's more akin to a thread in DT rather than helping the OP





I don't know who I'm going to vote for at the moment but I do know that if Labour made such a U-turn, the Conservatives would be all over them like a rash.

And the media too.

Labour produces a fully costed (and those costs independently verified) manifesto. The Conservatives offer a manifesto of vague proposals and no costings. They can't elaborate on any of their proposals because apparently they didn't have enough time to do so, yet it was them that called the election in the first place!

A Labour MP messes up an interview. The press demonises her for it. A Tory MP tells blatant lies, sneaked a look at his questions in advance (did you see Boris' interview yesterday?), yet it is laughed off?

I wouldn't vote for the Tories because of their attitude towards disabled and vulnerable people. All they can say about the million+ people that had to visit a food bank last year is that the reasons are "complex". They've got to be seriously out of touch with society if they can't work that one out.

But back to my point - I can't vote for liars. I can't vote for a party that allows themselves to be manipulated by the likes of Rupert Murdoch, and that in turn allows the population to be manipulated by the media.

(And there endeth my little political rant for today )

euronorris

happyandcontented wrote: »

In what way is it going off at a tangent? There are two sides to every argument and Sarah is presenting her opinion of the policy behind the OP. Whether you agree or disagree she is entitled to have her say.

On the assumption that people who don't have significant assets (ie, above the current thresholds), haven't worked hard, or saved hard.


Whilst that may be true for some, it is certainly not the case for all. Many people work damn hard, for their entire lives, just about scraping by each month on minimum wage (because we can't all be high earners). Some people have no room in their budget to save. Zero. Zilch. Or circumstances have meant that their money has had to spent elsewhere (ill health, death of a partner/spouse, redundancy, disability etc).


To assume that all those who benefit from free care are doing so because they were reckless with their money, is just nonsense.

Mr_Costcutter

We have a huge problem in trying to find the finances to fund the social care which will be needed for increasing numbers of people. This isn't a problem that has suddenly appeared - it's been looming for decades. Yet there isn't a government which has been able to find a fair solution to what has now become a crisis - find it extraordinary to be honest.