Over 60 resident relative. How to avoid losing the family home to care home fees

Malthusian

pensionpawn wrote: »

People who save all their lives in order to give their offspring the best possible start in life should not be penalised.

They aren't. If you spend all your money on private school fees or tutoring, and then require care, the LA will pay for you to go into Overmydeadbody Grove (unless you get lucky and the LA pays for a nice one). The same applies if you pay for your children to go to university or give them money for a house deposit before you anticipated any need for care - that's not deliberate deprivation.

The LA will not bash your children over the head until they've forgotten everything they learned in their posh school, in order to penalise you spending your money on giving them the best possible start in life instead of saving it for care.

Inheritances are most commonly inherited in late-middle-age (85-year-old stiff leaves money to 55-year-old child) and have absolutely nothing to do with "the best possible start in life". Unless you are unlucky enough to be orphaned prematurely, and most people would prefer having a mum or dad over an inheritance.

lisyloo

fred246 wrote: »

There are areas of the country where 90% of the population have no idea of the concept of savings. Every penny of income is spent every month. They couldn't possibly contribute. So do they all go into over my dead body homes?

They will be at the mercy of whatever is available.
It may not be near family and they may even be split up from a spouse (in different homes). It’s not just about the standard it’s also about choice of location which is very important to get any visitors.
But that’s the same with all “benefits” isn’t it.
It’s a safety net.

My relative got the same care as those that were local authority funded but it was in an area where a lot were local authority funded. Maybe that is the key. Don't live in an affluent area if you don't have savings.

It’s extremely simplistic to tell people to “just move” especially in their 80s and 90s.
They might have a spouse, children, grandchildren.
They may have dimensia and be unable to make decisions anyway and may well have personalised their property with a wet room, stairlift etc.

LA care is definitely a postcode lottery.
Residential Homes in London and the SE definitely have higher prices.

I’m not sure if you are suggesting planning your entire location In life around the LA provision. That doesn’t work for many reasons, firstly because you don’t know what it’s going to be like next year let alone in 60 years time but clearly people move for work opportunities and may not have a choice.
Those born in the 20s and 30s who are now in homes had very little opportunity to travel during their earlier lives in fact and to be honest never expected to live this long anyway so they never planned for it. My in laws left school at 14 and they weren’t educated about financial planning in the 1930’s.

Moving to Scotland where it’s free is an option but people don’t seem to have done that en masse.
When I ask why I don’t really get answers, but I would guess it has something to do with wanting to be near children, grandchildren and grandchildren especially if you need their assistance.

But your right that people living in poorer areas have much lower fees and possibly better choices,
I’ve never heard of someone in that age bracket moving. They usually want to be near family as the are quite needy.
Nursing homes do not (surprisingly) take care of dental, optical, hearing, clothing etc. And don’t manage finances, So there is a lot of personal stuff that needs to be done over and above the day-to-day care by families.

Your relative was lucky.
The nicer homes in the south only take LA residents with a top up usually.

lisyloo

pensionpawn wrote: »

...and why should the OP have to use all their savings and sell their property to pay for their care when those who sit on their !!!!! all their lifetime have a free hand out from the taxpayer? If you can't see it the issue here is fairness. People who save all their lives in order to give their offspring the best possible start in life should not be penalised. There needs to be a system that provides for all and is paid for by all. What next, redistribute private pensions to pay for those who !!!!!! it all up against the wall in their younger days?

My MIL is nearly 92. I can assure you her children will not be getting the best possible start in life from an inheritance.

At the moment we’d rather her money was spent on providing the very best possible care under the circumstances.

Let me turn this around on you and say that elderly people should have use of their own money For their own best interests rather than grasping offspring trying to take it off them prematurely whilst they are still alive !!
Its not what the majority voted for in our democracy.

If you want free care vote labour but you’re in a minority.

Skibunny40

With regard to the subject of free personal care, in my experience the problem is that the criteria to qualify for it just becomes incredibly high - because the council still has to fund the "free" care and they don't have the funds, so try to avoid offering it however they can. This then means that the people who do meet the criteria have extremely high physical needs which is very challenging for the carers. However, private care work is slightly better paid and can be less challenging so many of the council carers choose to work for private companies instead. So it's a vicious circle that even if the person is bad enough to qualify for the free care, there's little available because of staffing issues.

lisyloo

That is the situation at the moment with LA funded care.
If you have your own means you can enter a suitable establishment at a time of your choosing.
If you are LA funded you will have to wait until you and your family are on their knees quite literally.
My MIL went into a nursing home after a fall and after my disabled FIL in his late 80s broke down emotionally in front of the assessment team.
He did have family help out of hours but he was the one there 24/7 dealing with her being in the vile stage of dimensia.
Many people have a fall which is dangerous in itself. In general very elderly people do not recovery fully and there’s a small chance it could be fatal.

If anyone thinks they can just call up and go in then they are mistaken.
It’s a postcode lottery and resources are constrained and familes are expected to help even spouses in their 80s and 90s.

OldBeanz

lisyloo wrote: »

...
Many people have a fall which is dangerous in itself. In general very elderly people do not recovery fully and there’s a small chance it could be fatal.

...

"Falling is the second leading cause of accidental death worldwide and is a major cause of personal injury, especially for the elderly. Falls in older adults are an important class of preventable injuries."

tdphrmi

Hello. I am needing some advice. I am 80yrs old and around 9yrs ago my husband and I put our property in Trust for the benifit of our children and grandchildren . 5 years ago mu husband died I informed the trust company and was told I did not need to do anything at that time. I have now been told that the Trust Company is being wound up and have been contacted by another Trust who want to take over. Original trust were paid over 4 thousand pounds to set up. This Company are now wanting me to pay more money to transfer. I dont know what I should do now. Can anybody help please.

dunstonh

Can you clarify what you mean by "trust company"?   

thebullsback

I hope I retain the ability to pass on my hard earned money and property when I near the end.I cant bear to think of some leech organisation depriving my loved ones of something I worked for.

Strange how these "Homes" charge a fortune ,possably due to the fact that a mug punter ends up paying lots more as they also need to pay for those who have nothing.Also why do care home Staff get paid minimum wage on a whole yet they charge Dorchester prices.

unforeseen

Because the amount of money they can claim for non private funded residents doesn't actually cover their costs.