Care Home costs and property remains unsold

teddysmum

There have been cases where self funders have chosen superior, more expensive care homes, then had to move when the payment was taken over by the LA. There was an outcry, in the media, sometime ago ,when someone in their 80s was required to move.


However, it doesn't seem fair for the LA to give extra to people who chose 'luxury', but then again, it's not fair that the LA gives equal care to someone who has been workshy or a waster, where the self funder has to pay a total fee to cover themselves and subsidise those with state help, especially as this person has a also contributed through taxation, while the others paid little or nothing.


I prefer the euthanasia way if I should need care.

lisyloo

it's not fair that the LA gives equal care to someone who has been workshy or a waster,

In principle I agree with you, but we are talking about people here born in the 1920 or 1930s. People who left school at 14, did national service or served in the war. I don't think there are too many wasters from that pre-welfare state generation but it's unavoidable if we want to look after people that a few won't pull their weight.
The fact is that 60% of us are net takers when you take into account NHS, education, infrastructure, so that's the majority of us.

where the self funder has to pay a total fee to cover themselves and subsidise those with state help

I totally agree that the cross subsidisation is unfair on self funders,

I prefer the euthanasia way if I should need care.

You'll need to do it before you are unable to travel alone, or have someone willing to take the risk of prosecution or maybe move to a country where it's legal.
You'll also have to do it before you lose capacity (very high risk for someone else if you aren't actually able to agree at the time).

teddysmum

lisyloo wrote: »

In principle I agree with you, but we are talking about people here born in the 1920 or 1930s. People who left school at 14, did national service or served in the war. I don't think there are too many wasters from that pre-welfare state generation but it's unavoidable if we want to look after people that a few won't pull their weight.
The fact is that 60% of us are net takers when you take into account NHS, education, infrastructure, so that's the majority of us.


I totally agree that the cross subsidisation is unfair on self funders,


You'll need to do it before you are unable to travel alone, or have someone willing to take the risk of prosecution or maybe move to a country where it's legal.
You'll also have to do it before you lose capacity (very high risk for someone else if you aren't actually able to agree at the time).

I'm nearly 70 and there were quite few willing to live of the state in my generation, though handouts were not as generous, so there will be people as young as 60 taking advantage now. (A cousin , two or three years older than me,never worked in the time we had contact and did quite nicely living on the dole for years,first with his family living with his dad and then getting their own council house,furniture provided)We are the so called baby boomer generation and not the poor people who had to take part in war and the following lack of employment.


Regarding the euthanasia, I was not thinking of the present situation, but the one that is constantly refused on the grounds that the disabled would be easily done away with. However, I have conversed with a number of people including disabled(who have full capacity), who would prefer to go easily and in their own country, just like our pets.

lisyloo

However, I have conversed with a number of people including disabled(who have full capacity), who would prefer to go easily and in their own country, just like our pets.

Believe me I'm conversant with this (more than I'd like to be).


If you found a dog at the end of your road who was in the same state as my MIL and couldn't walk, couldn't get up, didn't want to eat, was in pain, couldn't see, couldn't hear, didn't know how to get home, then in all probability you'd take that animal to be put out of it's misery. However we are not allowed to extend this to humans so we have to watch them linger and decline.


But having seen family members turn into vultures over their inheritance I can imagine that some elderly people would be vulnerable.


If you really are serious about it and it wasn't jsut a throwaway comment then you need to make sure that arrangements are in place, not just for you but for the person who could face prosecution.

Susan1942

Margot Thank you for that I have just messaged the relative and advised them to do this. As you say they will have experience of dealing with this It is a residential home rather than a nursing home It is not my responsibility as I am just a friend to the person in the home I am living in an over 55 property and have been here since I was 56 Will be here 20 years at the end of September. This friend is a neighbour.
I have read the information on the link I was given about deferred payment and have sent this to the relative. Thanks again Sue

Susan1942

I have now read all the responses and many thanks for them. The Lady did start to get attendance allowance in the final year or two. She is very frail and was only 5 st 5 when she was admitted to hospital She looks a lot better now having put on some weight with meals being made for her. She is needing an awful lot more help with personal care since she went into the home. She is barely mobile just from the bed to the bathroom and during the night to the commode. She has a history of falling and is very scared about that. I was going to see her last week could not get a reply from the phone by her bed. Staff said she will be in the toilet. However I had let the phone ring for a long time but I did keep ringing. They checked her room and she had fallen. She told me she actually fainted when she got up to try and answer the phone. She could not live alone now but the home are happy to keep her even if her needs increase. As a few of you have said the relative needs to speak to the Manager in the home. and take it from there Thanks again for all the advice. Regrading over 55 living I have been living here for 20 years and during that time flats have sold some very quickly and others less so. There are two flats for sale out of 43 There are 2 flats rented by the owner or rather the relatives of the owner who are deceased.
Yes it is Leasehold and yes the maintainence is high but I am happy to live in a secure place and with any building or general maintainence roofs outside decoration etc dealt with. It might not suit everyone and I don't see me moving from here (76) until I either die or become dependant and need care. I hope that never happens but it is something some of us may be faced with. Again thanks to everyone Sue

3card

lisyloo wrote: »

No-one has to agree a top-up.
No-one in our family was able to agree to an unlimited liability.


Of course the LA will suggest that someone can do this as an option that they would be happy to encourage, but it's difficult for people to agree to an increasing, unlimited liability especially if you have more than one parent (for example a couple with 4 parents).



Totally agree. I don't wish to scaremonger but often it's better to be forewarned.




Agree but some we saw had people who had dressings hanging off, stench of urine and filthy toilets. Hard to imagine how that would be to anyone's liking.

Just to point out. My Mom is in a care home so i have some experience.

My Mom was self funding until she reached the £23250 threshold.
I think you will find any 3rd party top-up's are a matter between the home and relatives and although the LA will ask about this the LA are not the body to ask or insist on a 3rd party payment

Good look & hope it all goes well

Mojisola

Just worth noting that a resident who is being funded by the council isn't allowed to make top-up payments to the home from their own money - it has to come from a third party.

However, a resident who has a deferred payment scheme with the council can use their own money to pay the top-up - they are basically a self-funder.

Susan1942

Thanks again for all your very helpful advice. I do appreciate it.
Will get back when I have any further information
Sue

lisyloo

I think you will find any 3rd party top-up's are a matter between the home and relatives and although the LA will ask about this the LA are not the body to ask or insist on a 3rd party payment

I have experience too and when we were arguing about the home for my FIL the LA did say (at several points) that we could pay a top-up for the home of our choice rather than pressurise them to provide what we felt was reasonable i.e. not splitting a couple up after 60 years of marriage.


The LA may not be the official people to negotiate it with, but if there is a dispute may well suggest it as a solution.


They cannot insist anyone else pays to solve the issue although of course they can suggest it.


For me a top-up is an extremely difficult issue.
The liability is unlimited, increasing and some of us have several parents, so unless you are rich then it's quite a difficult thing to agree to.
The lady concerned (similar to my MIL) could live quite a long time whilst she is medicated, cleaned, fed, hydrated and looked after.