Care Home Fees - Putting house in trust

Spendless

LeadFarmer wrote: »

But then the flip side against that is if they have worked and saved hard purposely to financially help their children, which everyone is entitled to do.

No because no one has an automatic entitlement to be left anything. An inheritance is what is left after the person has died, not a plan for what you'll do when it happens.

You can make gifts within your lifetime, subject to certain rules.

Red-Squirrel_2

LeadFarmer wrote: »

But then the flip side against that is if they have worked and saved hard purposely to financially help their children, which everyone is entitled to do.

Are you willing to pay higher taxes so that everybody who needs it can have their social care funded by the state?

seven-day-weekend

I agree with helping children during your lifetime if you can afford to do so. But for many people their only asset is their house.

Having said that, I can see that if you can't live there any more, then your house is indeed an asset as much as money in the bank, and may have to have its value realised to pay for care home fees.

We have been fortunate enough to be able to help our son with a sizeable amount which will really help him now, when he needs it. Hopefully he will also inherit our bungalow. But if it has to go towards care home fees, sobeit.

Tabbytabitha

74jax wrote: »

It's very hard to even think of what you would do in this situation it's such a dilemma that you never hope to meet.

My dad worked his entire life, saved, very well for retirement. Mum and he had 2 cruises before she had a double stroke. He then became her main carer. He then got cancer and battled very hard each day failing on the day before until he died. The week before he died he was on his hospital bed with his doctor, myself and my brother, writing us both cheques for much more than we were thought he had. As he didn't want it eaten by 'the system'.

It can only be because of his confused state before death as if he knew about care cost he would have been happy to leave it for mum. But he felt he owed his 2 children something. He handed me the cheque and said 'I can't do anymore for you now'....

The care mum now needs is immense, not round the clock, as once the carers put her to bed she's asleep till the morning, but she needs a good 18hrs care. Which comes at different levels of cost. The lower end tends to be unqualified no real experience of dementia and stroke carers, or the higher end which provided detailed care to match individual ailments.

As a mum now I know the care I want. I don't want to be a burden on my daughter so I'm preparing for if I do need to pay for my care. I also help my daughter out now, when she needs it rather than saving it to leave her. Inheritance isn't a right. It's nice if something is left over but not at the detriment of living a decent standard of life yourself.

I never got on with my mum, still don't, see her twice a year and it's probably in a few threads on here how she had treated me in the past and brought me down. I love my dad immensely, I still look back at the exemplary man he was with pride. I honestly believe as the cancer had spread to his brain it altered how he rationaled things. He would never have wanted mum without his money, had he known the care not having it she would recieve.he cared for her until he died. Nearly 60 years after marrying.

I would urge you to look at the care on offer, consider how you will meet payments to the level of care you want - government doe not always pay for all singing all dancing care - and then have a discussion. If parents want to help children then do so now, if it doesn't leave you strapped. But don't put your last year's on earth in jeopardy because you want your children to have something that could play for your care to ease your remaining years. You have earned it.

In the end I took dad's watch and when I look at it, I see dad, feel dad and smell him again. That watch means far more to me than his cheque he wrote. And I know he would be extremely proud of me and my brother and the care arranged for mum. If dad had been in his right mind he would have wanted the best for her and we knew that. I might not be able to spend more than half an hour with her but he could, and did.

I know this is long winded but care is so important, so please look at what is available, the different standards and make your decision on that.

I agree with what you've written but have to ask - what did you do with the cheques?:)

74jax

Tabbytabitha wrote: »

I agree with what you've written but have to ask - what did you do with the cheques?:)

Just cashed them fine. He died very shortly after but they had cleared in time so was no issue with them. He made us both promise to deposit as soon as we could (I'm sure he knew the end was near and I promised him I would) so there was me in the middle of my city at around 11pm at Halifax on the phone to my husband crying because the cheque deposit machine had run out of the envelopes to deposit cheques in. Honestly you'd have thought it was the end of the world but I'd promised my dying dad I would.... Its so strange how the mind reacts in certain situations.

Was a right faff to be honest as we had to then list them as gifts on the inheritance tax forms, and so mum lost a bit with them whereas had he just left it as it was she'd have had more. But at the time, to him, the most important thing was to write these cheques. His doctor said he wouldn't settle in bed. It's so sad to think he worried about it at the end. But to him he was at ease afterwards and that's the most important thing to me.

Spendless

74jax wrote: »

Just cashed them fine. He died very shortly after but they had cleared in time so was no issue with them. He made us both promise to deposit as soon as we could (I'm sure he knew the end was near and I promised him I would) so there was me in the middle of my city at around 11pm at Halifax on the phone to my husband crying because the cheque deposit machine had run out of the envelopes to deposit cheques in. Honestly you'd have thought it was the end of the world but I'd promised my dying dad I would.... Its so strange how the mind reacts in certain situations.

Was a right faff to be honest as we had to then list them as gifts on the inheritance tax forms, and so mum lost a bit with them whereas had he just left it as it was she'd have had more. But at the time, to him, the most important thing was to write these cheques. His doctor said he wouldn't settle in bed. It's so sad to think he worried about it at the end. But to him he was at ease afterwards and that's the most important thing to me.

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't this be classed as deprivation of assets, when one parent writes out cheques on his death-bed and then the other parent needs care? Not necessarily in your perosnal case, because your Mum presumably has enough money to pay for her care costs and it hasn't come to the point where her home is having to be sold or do you mean your Dad died many years before your Mum had care needs?

mrschaucer

Spendless wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't this be classed as deprivation of assets, when one parent writes out cheques on his death-bed and then the other parent needs care?

I think you are getting confused. Deprivation of assets is depriving yourself of money you might need to fund your own care. The money in this case was presumably the father's money only. He would indeed have deprived himself of assets if HE had needed future care, but he was quite at liberty to give away HIS assets on his deathbed as he saw fit, or bequeath them to the local cats' home in his will without any question of deprivation of assets arising.
The mother has her own money which, as she needs care, she is unable to give away.

Sea_Shell

What if the cheques were drawn on a joint account??

Spendless

mrschaucer wrote: »

I think you are getting confused. Deprivation of assets is depriving yourself of money you might need to fund your own care. The money in this case was presumably the father's money only. He would indeed have deprived himself of assets if HE had needed future care, but he was quite at liberty to give away HIS assets on his deathbed as he saw fit, or bequeath them to the local cats' home in his will without any question of deprivation of assets arising.
The mother has her own money which, as she needs care, she is unable to give away.

Wouldn't the money be classed as joint? Genuine question, I don't know the answer but for some things eg claiming means tested benefits it is the household income that is taken into account there's no 'his' and 'hers' money. Why would giving away money that is 'joint' not be classed as deprivation of assets should care be needed not long afterwards for the surviving party?

Ames

Spendless wrote: »

Wouldn't the money be classed as joint? Genuine question, I don't know the answer but for some things eg claiming means tested benefits it is the household income that is taken into account there's no 'his' and 'hers' money. Why would giving away money that is 'joint' not be classed as deprivation of assets should care be needed not long afterwards for the surviving party?

Based on other threads on here, it's not considered joint money if it's in one spouse's name. There are people who are left in a pickle if the one who's name is on the savings was the one needing care, as the other one is left with nothing. Of course, other couples 'win' when it's the other way round.

Money in a joint account is treated differently.