Pensions and Care Home Fees

Mojisola

Alibert wrote: »

Some parts of government policy encourage people into care homes .. Viz
..care home fees can be deferred and taken as a charge on your house, so only paid when you die
..but cost of care inside your own home can't be deferred.

So the only way you can afford care in your own home is to , um, sell your home

But the value of your house isn't included in the financial assessment if you will still be living there - it's only your income that's taken into account.

lisyloo

Some parts of government policy encourage people into care homes

Can you explain what you mean by that?


My personal experience having been through it twice is the total opposite and that local authorities do everything possible to keep people in their homes with care visits up to 4 times a day. It's only when they get beyond this and need 24/7 care that it's cheaper for them to be in a shared facility.


The only time LAs are in a rush to get people in a care home is when they are bed blocking in hospital as LA's can be fined.

So the only way you can afford care in your own home is to , um, sell your home

If you mean the max 4 visits a day from social services this is NOT true.
They do a means test and it's generous (I've done it twice), so you only have to pay if you have the means, otherwise it's free. The allowance is around £300 per week on £15K annually before you have to pay (in my LA anyway).



If you mean choosing to stay in your own how and having 24/7 care privately, then this is the total opposite of your suggestion to throw yourself on the mercy of the state and end up in Overmydeadbody Grove.


This would however potentially be an option that someone who'd left themselves means could consider, although it's clearly much more expensive to have personal 24/7 care especially if qualified nurses are required than to be in a shared facility, so probably the preserve of the wealthy.

Alibert

I mean that if you have any help in your own home (over and above whatever you can get for free from social services) then you have to pay cash , you can't defer it as a charge on your property.

If you go into a care home however, any fees you have to pay CAN be deferred.

If you have a property, but little cash , that's a problem

Malthusian

Alibert wrote: »

I mean that if you have any help in your own home (over and above whatever you can get for free from social services) then you have to pay cash , you can't defer it as a charge on your property.

But if Mojisola is correct, if you don't have enough income to pay for help in your own home, the taxpayer pays. There's no need to put a charge on your own property.

If you do have enough income to pay for help in your own home, but don't want your disposable income to be reduced by paying for care and want it to come out of your house equity instead, then take out equity release and use it to pay the home care fees.

lisyloo

I mean that if you have any help in your own home (over and above whatever you can get for free from social services) then you have to pay cash , you can't defer it as a charge on your property.

Can you clarify what type of help you perceive will be needed that won't be covered by social services?
Tescos will deliver for free.
Cutting toenails - £5 every 6 weeks.
Washing £20 per week.
Bed change £10 per week.
I'm quoting real figures.


oh - and many of your needs ar included in the calculation e.g. if you need extra laudry done for incontinence.

If you go into a care home however, any fees you have to pay CAN be deferred.

The local authority MAY let you defer. It's not a right.

If you have a property, but little cash , that's a problem

Why is it an issue?
Why would you want to keep a property unoccupied permanently?
You may need to pay service charges, ground rent, maintenance (you almost certainly can't do DIY yourself if you are in a care home) and you'll need to pay for insurance and have the property regularly visited to maintain your insurance policy.
You'll have liabilities as well.

Council are allowed to charge double for council tax after 2 years.


I'm shortly going to be selling a property rather than keeping it.
Why on earth would we want to keep it?

What's the benefit to doing this?

Alibert

Who wants to leave a property unoccupied?

The person I am trying to help wants to stay in it, but then can't afford the care she needs (sorry not going to itemise this)

If she goes into a care home she will defer the cost of the home against the house (husband living in it no need to sell)

If she gets care in her own home .. cheaper for everyone .. she can't defer the fees

This alone i think might force her into a home

Mojisola

Alibert wrote: »

If she goes into a care home she will defer the cost of the home against the house (husband living in it no need to sell)

If the house is still going to be needed by her husband, there won't be a deferred payment scheme in place because the value of the house won't be included in the assessment.

Alibert

I don't think that's right , it's the opposite isn't it
. as that is the whole point of deferring .. because the spouse needs the house.

If there is no spouse there is no need to defer, you just sell the empty house

lisyloo

Alibert wrote: »

The person I am trying to help wants to stay in it, but then can't afford the care she needs (sorry not going to itemise this)

I don!t buy this.
I;ve applied twice and the means test is generous.
If she cant afford it she doesnt have to pay.
Has she applied for AA (not means tested), carers allowance, pension credit, council tax allowance?

If she goes into a care home

Hang on a minute, this isn;t a free choice if your not paying.
If she can be supported at home then the LA will NOT pay for a care home. Why would they?

she will defer the cost of the home against the house (husband living in it no need to sell)

If the LA agreed to a care home (which they may well not) Then the residential home is disregarded

If she gets care in her own home .. cheaper for everyone ..

If its feasible she wont be offfered a care home.

This alone i think might force her into a home

I think youre incorrect.
The LA and taxpayers will want the cheapest option.
They will also expect her husband to help to the extent that he can.

lisyloo

Alibert wrote: »

I don't think that's right , it's the opposite isn't it
. as that is the whole point of deferring .. because the spouse needs the house.

The property is disregarded.
Her income however would be taken leav8ng her with £25 for personal stuff like clothing.
So any pensions, pension credit, attendance allowance would go.

I’ve been through this as my MIL had free care for 8.5 months whilst FIL was alive.