Being put in a home then told to sell your house to pay for it

Beate

My parents worked all their lives to pay for their house and get support when they retired. However after being on a pension for a few years my father had a heart attack and my mother started to suffer from memory loss and mental problems. They were getting home help and were under the impression that this would be given until they died. However a few years ago they were told that their support could not continue or home help and were told they had to go into a home. The real killer was that they said there was no way they could find them a state run home which could care for them both. So they had to go for a private carehome the costs of which were astronomical. My father died a very sad man a couple of years ago because all his life savings were going down the drain. My mother has just died and there is very little of their savings left. I would love to take the state to court and get back the money they have conned my parents out of. But I am not sure whether I would get anywhere with such a case. What are your views.

seven-day-weekend

Unfortunately if you have savings above £21000 (and the equity in a house is classed as such) the State expects you to fund your own care.

I know this seems awful, but really isn't this the 'rainy day' that the savings were for? If you try to look at it this way, you may feel better about it.

It's because people your mum and dad's age were led to expect 'cradle to grave' care and it would seem the state has reneged on them. That's why it seems so unfair. But to be frank, look at it another way, it'll be today's taxpayers that fund it otherwise and that does not seem right when your parents have the funds.

Hope things work out for you.

droopsnout

I understand that argument, s-d-w, but find it hard to accept.

The reason is that people of that particular generation were indeed urged to save for those "rainy days", and they also paid their NI contributions, thinking that that was the way the State was covering their later years.

But my main point is that if those folks had smoked, drunk, gambled and spent their money, the State would have looked after them anyway, wouldn't it? So what incentive is there for people to save their money to pay nursing home fees when they could have had more material pleasures earlier in life - or just given the money to charity?

I know my Mum feels conned that the State is unlikely to pay for any care she needs in her later years.

susieb

I dont think you will get anywhere, but totally agree with you.
If your parents had rented a house spent all their money on the good life, had fast cars, expensive holidays etc etc, they would not have had to pay, but because they where careful and had built up savings, I presume in order to give their kids a good start in life etc, they then had to use this money.
Its not fair that someone who has been careful with money has to use it, when other who have been spending it all, then get free care.

margaretclare

I actually agree with 7DWE and I am of 'that particular generation'. I'm still saving - maybe not so much for a 'rainy day' as that we may live another 20 years and we don't know what our needs may be in that time. We're not smoking, drinking and gambling our money because we wouldn't enjoy doing those things anyway! Having said that, we haven't much savings any more because we've just changed our car and immediately spent £4,650 on it - we'll get far more enjoyment and use out of it than of any amount of smoking, drinking and gambling.

I never believed in the whole 'cradle to grave' thing, although I must admit I've benefited from it - better education, better health-care than my grandparents could have dreamed of. DH and I have had repeated joint replacements and cataract surgery which is making a huge difference to our quality of life and enabling us to stay independent for much longer. All this is being paid for by today's taxpayers, and what we paid for was the pensioners of that time - having said that, we're still taxpayers!

We've also done a lot of modernising and upgrading to our home e.g. shower unit instead of bath, to enable us NOT to have to go into a home. Was there NO alternative between home help and going into a home? Could your parents not have paid for more help in the home even if it couldn't be provided free? I know this is something that I would be well prepared to do if we needed it. There are care agencies around, domestic help agencies like Poppy's, anyone can get help if they pay for it, and this works out far cheaper than going into a home. In a home what you're mainly paying for is bed-and-board, laundry, those kind of things.

You say your Mum 'feels conned that the State is unlikely to pay...' - well, for the State read the taxpayer, that's you and me.

Margaret

seven-day-weekend

Just to add that further to my post above (which I do see the logic of), I don't want to have to sell my house either, so I can understand how people feel in such circumstances.

But times have changed and really we can't now expect the State to provide everything for us.

As for the people who squandered their money, well they have no choice of what care they will have, whereas those with their own capital do. So it's all about choices. You can have a better standard of care if you fund yourself.

Techno

In the end, we can't take it with us - Older people should be encouraged to spend their money on themselves so that they get the best possible quality of life in their final years - that's what I'm telling MiL

Ian_W

If your parents had rented a house spent all their money on the good life, had fast cars, expensive holidays etc etc, they would not have had to pay, but because they where careful and had built up savings, I presume in order to give their kids a good start in life etc, they then had to use this money.

But I'm afraid the crux of the matter is as SDW says:

As for the people who squandered their money, well they have no choice of what care they will have, whereas those with their own capital do.

My mother turns 80 this year and I'd much, much rather she uses her money, and house if needs be, to have the best care possible [if that need arises] than consider the money wasted if it's not left to me.
But there were a hell of a lot of folks of my mothers generation who were poor because of circumstances other than squandering their money on fast cars, booze and fags and who also worked damned hard - they had no choice in care provision.
Might sound cruel but be grateful your parents had the money to provide care for themselves rather than rely on what socialist services could afford. Lots of folk who weren't wasters all their lives don't!

monkeyspanner

If your parents care needs were primarily domestic then your chances of getting any money back are small. If their savings funds were kept separate they should not have been self funding after their individual savings reduced to £21500 (current limit). If their savings were in joint accounts I am not sure of the treatment.

If they had to sell their house and this was their primary asset i.e they had less than £21500 (or the limit at that time) in cash savings the council should have provided a 12 week disregard period where they picked up the cost of the home (less an income contribution assessment) for the first 12 weeks.

If you feel that either or both of your parents needs were primarily medical then they should have been assessed for continuing care which is wholely funded by the NHS but very difficult to claim successfully. A successful retrospective (post death) claim for this funding has been made where a substantial sum was repaid to the family. I am not sure of the detail of this case but think the claim may have hinged on a continuing care assessment which was incorrect.

you may find this site useful www.counselandcare.org.uk

droopsnout

"Things have changed."

Indeed.

Look, there are simple financial choices to make, like whether to have an army in Iraq and elsewhere, or pay for students' education (as the Scots do) or look after our mums and dads in their last years.

I don't consider myself a raving leftie or anything, but I know I'd rather a government of any colour looks after my mum than bombs someone else's.

Times do change. Trouble is, my mum's generation seem persuaded that if they paid their dues, they would be looked after in old age. Now they're told they won't be, and the house they scrimped and saved for effectively goes to the State to fund their nursing home fees. It can't be a surprise that they find that more than a tiny disappointment.

seven-day-weekend

I do understand what you are saying Droopsnout, and indeed can see the injustice of it. Ideally, I do think that our elderlies should be looked after free in their old agae.

But things are far from ideal and I suppose we have to work with things as they are, not as we would like them to be. If someone has the capital then thye can use it to buy themselves choice (and actually the money doesn't go to the State, it goes to the Care Home).

I have actually changed my mind somewhat on this as I have been reading the numerous posts on here about it. My mum didn't have her own house and fortunately had excellent care in a Council-run home, but had she have had the wherewithal, I'd much rather she spent it to give herself the best posssible care, if what she had was lacking.