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

Mojisola

pauline123456 wrote: »

isn't there a cap on the total cost they charge you before the local authority steps in , or even if you had a £500,000 house they would take the lot if need be

If you have over £23,250, you pay your own way.

If you have between £14,250 and £23,250, the council will pay some of your care.

If you have under £14,250, the council will pay the care home bill but you have to contribute all your income bar £27.75 per week for personal spending.

lisyloo

pauline123456 wrote: »

isn't there a cap on the total cost they charge you before the local authority steps in , or even if you had a £500,000 house they would take the lot if need be

No there isn’t a maximum cap at the present time.
There has been talk of it several times and Theresa May did try proposing a cap and the papers have always been pushed back.

Most people in residential/nursing homes don’t live that long but there are cases where people can live a long time and therefore there’s a chance of running out of private funds.

You can buy an annuity product to avoid this that pays out a sum each month for life in return to a lump sum (like a pension annuity). This transfers the risk to an insurance company, for a price (of course).

Regarding “the lot”, for capital they’d stop at £14250, for income it’s about £25 per week for personal needs, but if you were in a nice home you’d need to transfer to one within local authority rate (by implication cheaper and a lot less nice).

Silvertabby

“ isn't there a cap on the total cost they charge you before the local authority steps in , or even if you had a £500,000 house they would take the lot if need be
Originally posted by pauline123456

Before the last election, the Tory manifesto included the plan to increase the ring fenced amount from £24K to £100k. Unfortunately, some elements of the electorate preferred the Labour proposal of 'free' university, and so Theresa May didn't get the majority she would have needed to make this law.

lisyloo

Silvertabby wrote: »

Before the last election, the Tory manifesto included the plan to increase the ring fenced amount from £24K to £100k. Unfortunately, some elements of the electorate preferred the Labour proposal of 'free' university, and so Theresa May didn't get the majority she would have needed to make this law.

I think this is incorrect and 2 things are being mixed up here.
There is a threshold which is the amount of money you can keep (currently 14250).
Then there is a cap which is max amount you have to spend (currently there is no max).
Theresa May proposed a £100k cap (not a threshold) note this is for just care and not board and lodging and I believe at LA rates so in practice would be higher for many people. These green/white papers have not been progressed so there’s no cap but there is a (small) threshold.

It’s consistent with many other means tested benefits in that it’s a safety net for those who don’t have their own resources.
There is an argument that it’s unfair that those with dimensia have these costs (as they mainly need personal care) whereas someone with say cancer who needed medical care would be treated for free on the NHS.
Social care needs some attention but whilst we have brexit going on this kind of issue that affects a minority is not getting a look in.

So to confirm, the proposal wasn’t that you can keep £100k it was that you only have to spend £100k (on care alone not board and lodging).

MightyWhitey

I've taken the feedback related to the OP, and have emailed the financial assessments team of the council who deal with this, with my circumstances. My hope is that they can issue an advice based on that without the need to involve a solicitor at this stage. If there are any objections it may start to frame things better.

I'll provide some details to help others if they are in similar circumstances.

xylophone

Purely as a matter of interest, why do you/your mother think that the taxpayer should fund her care when she has the resources to do so?

lisyloo

xylophone wrote: »

Purely as a matter of interest, why do you/your mother think that the taxpayer should fund her care when she has the resources to do so?

This is a moral conundrum I’ve struggled with myself.
Is it not morally incumbent on all of us to do the best for our families within the law?

Let’s suppose there are some generous rules that might be regarded by some as loopholes.
Should we turn them down with our moral logic? Is that the way it’s meant to work, everyone making up their own mind?
Who’s to say what’s morally right? Or should we use the current rules as our guideline? What if I’m wrong and financially disadvantage my family by being overly moral? Isn’t that wrong too?

If there’s a rule we think disadvantages us we have no discretion there. So can we morally take advantage of one generous “loophole” to offset the rules we think are unfair?

What is a loophole and what is ok?
For example is it ok to salary sacrifice to get benefits?
If it’s not ok, why does the law allow it? The law says it’s ok surely?
Who gets to decide what’s ok and what’s not? Each of us individually? Isn’t that madness?
Isn’t this what the laws are for?

I suspect some would say they’d paid in all their lives so are entitled to take their entitlements.

brewerdave

lisyloo wrote: »

This is a moral conundrum I’ve struggled with myself.
Is it not morally incumbent on all of us to do the best for our families within the law?
I suspect some would say they’d paid in all their lives so are entitled to take their entitlements.

100% agree with this - various Govts. have been quick enuf to take taxes and NI from my salary -and don't even start on the "legal" robbery that is Council Tax - now I'm a pensioner I grab everything I can -morality doesn't enter into it!!

And if I can protect some of my hard won savings for the benefit of my nearest and dearest...............

roddydogs

Except that means someone else has to pay.

lisyloo

roddydogs wrote: »

Except that means someone else has to pay.

But we all pay in via tax and NI (note insurance) to cater for the situations where we can’t pay or are entitled (some benefits aren’t means tested).

So what’s wrong with other people paying when we are genuine entitled? (according to govt rules).

Are you not going to take your state pension because it means someone else will be paying?

I presume you’d be happy for other people to pay for hospital treatment/chemotherapy/expensive drugs if you had cancer?

If you’re saying we need to go along with the spirit of the rules and not the letter then who gets to decide?
Each of us individually with our own subjective morality?
Personally I think it ought to be made clear by the rules and not leaving any scope for individuals to apply their own subjective morality as that seems madness to me and very subjective and biased.