Grandparent going into home (keeping savings)

jackyann

I hear that a team are working on a 'green paper' that reflects many of the findings of the Dilnott Commission (kicked into the long grass some years ago)
Whatever is decided, it is not going to please everyone. However, as it seems the younger people on this forum have not grown up with the idea that they will be cared for, they may save in the expectation of needing care (once they've sorted out their ridiculously expensive homes, saved for their pensions etc)
But whatever it is, we need it soon. we also need a cross party commission on the NHS - but that will have a clearer picture if we are funding social care correctly.
Sorry OP, if I've hijacked the thread!

euronorris

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

It's over 7 years ago - and 7 years is basically how far back HMRC looks as far as I can tell. So it's pretty unreasonable to think any other bit of the "government" would look back further than that.

2003 is 15 years ago and a heck of a lot can change in 15 years.

Nope. The 7 year rule is with regards to gifting and IHT, not care fees and deprivation of capital.


There is no time limit, and they have looked back farther than that before.


If the person in question was already of questionable health, or if they had gifted the asset for no good reason (leaving themselves very vulnerable as a result, I might add), then you can be damn sure that the LA will be looking into that and trying to claim it back!

euronorris

Craig_Donny wrote: »

No nothing like that, sorry my explanition is poor. She sold her house in about 2003, but not for very much. She couldnt afford anything she wanted or that was sutable. So my Auntie bought her a property to live in, no money was put in by my grandmother. And the savings are from selling her house orginally and pensions.

As ive said, i dont want this coming across as me being a nasty person. I have been travelling 40 miles a day for the past 2 months so me and my mother can see her in hospital and this was just a thought i had that could help. Nothing else. Nothing untoward.

Why did she sell her house? And what happened to the proceeds? £28k capital remaining is not a lot, especially as she didn't then have rent to pay?


Was there a mortgage that got paid off as a result?


You mention that pensions are a contributory factor in the accumulation of her savings, which would suggest that she has had an income surplus (at least in recent years). So, I am wondering, was the mortgage unaffordable and so she sold the property to settle that debt and then live rent free in your aunt's property? If so, then that is a very valid reason for selling the capital and I would not expect it to be considered deprivation of capital by the LA.

pearl123

Found some info. See link.
"Note that Yule v South Lanarkshire Council [1999] 1 CCLR 546 establishes there is no time limit on how far back Local Authorities can look when deciding whether a person has deliberately deprived themselves of assets to avoid residential care. So for example, if you transfer your home to your child or children when you are in your forties (although still fit and healthy) but continue to live in the property until your sixties (when you need care), there is a high risk the Local Authority will still regard this as deliberate deprivation of assets."

https://www.aprilking.co.uk/2017/01/30/deprivation-of-assets-guide/

euronorris

Also - does your grandmother still have mental capacity? If so, now is the time to get a Lasting Power of Attorney setup, whilst she is still capable.


If not, is there already a Lasting Power of Attorney in place? If not, your mother and/or aunt, will now need to get a Deputyship Order in place. If they don't the local authority will and then your Mother and Aunt will have very little/no say in care homes etc.

elsien

euronorris wrote: »

. If they don't the local authority will and then your Mother and Aunt will have very little/no say in care homes etc.

That is incorrect. For someone who lacks capacity, the best interests process in deciding where someone goes should always involves family being consulted unless they are considered not appropriate to consult.. The sticking point is always what is affordable and what is available within those options.

euronorris

elsien wrote: »

That is incorrect. For someone who lacks capacity, the best interests process in deciding where someone should always involves family being consulted unless they are considered not appropriate to consult.. The sticking point is always what is affordable and what is available within those options.

Apologies, you are correct. However, but they still won't be the ones making the final decision.

Gavin83

elsien wrote: »

That is incorrect. For someone who lacks capacity, the best interests process in deciding where someone should always involves family being consulted unless they are considered not appropriate to consult.. The sticking point is always what is affordable and what is available within those options.

Agreed, the council will always consult with the family. Typically they'll provide a list of valid homes and ask the family to visit and choose. The issue arises when the family don't like any of the homes and want a more expensive one that doesn't accept the council rate. The council will not pay above their rate unless it's exceptional circumstances and if the family are deemed to be difficult the council can force the placement. You'd get the odd family that had squirreled away the money to avoid paying fees yet still wanted their parent placed in the expensive home that didn't accept the council rate. Having your cake and eating it springs to mind.

I don't really understand why people are so funny about paying for care. We live in a country where the relatively well off pay for services and the poor get the same services for free. For the most part people seem ok with this but when it comes to care the attitudes change and people try all sorts to avoid paying. Maybe it's the amount of money involved. I used to work in this area and used to see all sorts of tactics. Some people used to get very aggressive when found out as well but I guess they saw it as you removing £250k directly from their pocket.

However as someone pointed out above, it's always the relatives that have an issue rather than the resident themselves. I guess people just don't like seeing their inheritance disappearing.

Saying that in most cases they'll still be an inheritance left, once entering care most people don't generally live long enough to see their entire estate wiped out.

elsien

Yes, I recently was workinng with someone where the family had placed the person in a home costing 2K a week, knowing the money would run out within weeks but were then vehemently complaining that the LA wouldn't pay to keep them there because they'd settled.
Then it's the person who suffers from being bumped from pillar to post and having to move, when the whole situation could have been avoided with a more realistic choice of home in the first place.

euronorris

It's because people see it as just that 'their inheritance'. Which it isn't. Not until the donor has passed away. But it is often how it is viewed.


Not uncommon for the resident to feel this way either. My father is a good example. He doesn't need care yet (potentially never will), but he is already up in arms about how much he will need to pay for his care and that he won't be able to pass it all on to my mum/us children.


I've tried explaining to him that having money affords him the luxury of choice that many others do not have, but it falls on deaf ears.