Placing house in a trust

Zanderman

Teacake1903 said:

resk said:

I honestly don't know why people are so obsessed with dodging care home fees.  I can't think of a situation where I'd ever want either of my parents to not use what assets they have to have a comfortable end to their lives, and I would hope that they would think the same way.  Isn't that what building wealth is for?  

That’s one way of looking at but I then may not be able to leave anything for my children because I’m also building wealth for them 

If you're happy to be put in the cheapest available council-funded care (when council funding is less and less available, so quality lower and lower) then that's fine.  I wouldn't want to be. 

But even if you're happy with low budget care and building wealth for your children is one of your aims, putting a house in trust to avoid care home fees simply doesn't work.  So doing it is a waste of time - and money.  It is probably being mis-sold to you.

Better, surely, to leave things as they are.  And anticipate that you will be able to get better than low budget care - if you need care at all.  And that as you may not need care at all the house value will be intact. 

sevenhills

Zanderman said:

If you're happy to be put in the cheapest available council-funded care (when council funding is less and less available, so quality lower and lower) then that's fine.  I wouldn't want to be.

My mother spent her later life on benefits and ended up in care, the homes that she was in were not much different to the home my aunt is in. I had two aunties that were in care homes, perhaps better quality homes. Perhaps having close relatives in care homes means I could end up in one, although my father lived alone untill his death. I have read that these homes can cost above £500 per week.

There may be a difference, I don't know.

zagfles

bostonerimus said:

The fact that people are looking for ways to reduce their net worth because of the means testing of social care shows that the system is not working for the people that need it. The Government has promised to reform this area of the care system, but I don't see much urgency just now...maybe they have other things on their plate. My father was "lucky" because he had to go into hospice care for cancer in the mid 1990s and it was all taken care off by the hospital and my Mum didn't have to worry about bills. Today if you don't have a similar medical condition and are just too old to cope with living on your own you might face a big bill. Without a viable social care insurance option (either private or government) the old in the UK are in a ridiculous situation. My Grandma was in care for a few years back in the 1970s and it was all paid for by the NHS and the local government. We should still have that available. So I'd like to pay a bit more NI to fund that.

The problem is it's a political football and has been for decades. Theresa May proposed a scheme in the 2017 election manifesto, it was dubbed the "dementia tax" and it's probably the main reason she lost her majority, from having 20%+ leads in the polls. Labour proposed a similar scheme when they were in power but chickened out because they though the Tories would use it for political gain. In both cases, peoples' inheritances were at risk, a big vote loser. More so than people suffering through lack of care it seems.

There needs to be cross party support for any scheme, but that's unlikely to happen because it's too good an opportunity for the opposition to use to gain political advantage whatever the govt does. Particularly now with Labour so weak, they'll want anything they can to use against the Tories, and this is so much more relevant and important to people than who paid for Boris's wallpaper.

So it's lose lose for the govt, hence the contant kicking into the long grass.

xylophone

I have read that these homes can cost above £500 per week.

Relative's relative (even after the nursing care element which  was NHS funded), was paying well over £60,000 a year.

And she had vascular dementia, heart failure,  was deaf, doubly incontinent, needed to be helped with all personal care, had extremely limited mobility (and indeed a wheelchair was the only feasible option for the last nine months or so) - but she was only just being considered for CHC funding when she died before the assessment could be done.

CHC funding is very hard to get.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-framework-for-nhs-continuing-healthcare-and-nhs-funded-nursing-care

OldBeanz

zagfles said:

bostonerimus said:

The fact that people are looking for ways to reduce their net worth because of the means testing of social care shows that the system is not working for the people that need it. The Government has promised to reform this area of the care system, but I don't see much urgency just now...maybe they have other things on their plate. My father was "lucky" because he had to go into hospice care for cancer in the mid 1990s and it was all taken care off by the hospital and my Mum didn't have to worry about bills. Today if you don't have a similar medical condition and are just too old to cope with living on your own you might face a big bill. Without a viable social care insurance option (either private or government) the old in the UK are in a ridiculous situation. My Grandma was in care for a few years back in the 1970s and it was all paid for by the NHS and the local government. We should still have that available. So I'd like to pay a bit more NI to fund that.

The problem is it's a political football and has been for decades. Theresa May proposed a scheme in the 2017 election manifesto, it was dubbed the "dementia tax" and it's probably the main reason she lost her majority, from having 20%+ leads in the polls. Labour proposed a similar scheme when they were in power but chickened out because they though the Tories would use it for political gain. In both cases, peoples' inheritances were at risk, a big vote loser. More so than people suffering through lack of care it seems.

There needs to be cross party support for any scheme, but that's unlikely to happen because it's too good an opportunity for the opposition to use to gain political advantage whatever the govt does. Particularly now with Labour so weak, they'll want anything they can to use against the Tories, and this is so much more relevant and important to people than who paid for Boris's wallpaper.

So it's lose lose for the govt, hence the contant kicking into the long grass.

I remember listening to Andy Burnham making the same arguments when he was the Health Secretary.
What happens in other countries? Families take responsibility, presumably.
Old age, dementia and disability are not unique to the UK and there must be a feasible model somewhere else in the world.

Silvertabby

OldBeanz said:

zagfles said:

bostonerimus said:

The fact that people are looking for ways to reduce their net worth because of the means testing of social care shows that the system is not working for the people that need it. The Government has promised to reform this area of the care system, but I don't see much urgency just now...maybe they have other things on their plate. My father was "lucky" because he had to go into hospice care for cancer in the mid 1990s and it was all taken care off by the hospital and my Mum didn't have to worry about bills. Today if you don't have a similar medical condition and are just too old to cope with living on your own you might face a big bill. Without a viable social care insurance option (either private or government) the old in the UK are in a ridiculous situation. My Grandma was in care for a few years back in the 1970s and it was all paid for by the NHS and the local government. We should still have that available. So I'd like to pay a bit more NI to fund that.

The problem is it's a political football and has been for decades. Theresa May proposed a scheme in the 2017 election manifesto, it was dubbed the "dementia tax" and it's probably the main reason she lost her majority, from having 20%+ leads in the polls. Labour proposed a similar scheme when they were in power but chickened out because they though the Tories would use it for political gain. In both cases, peoples' inheritances were at risk, a big vote loser. More so than people suffering through lack of care it seems.

There needs to be cross party support for any scheme, but that's unlikely to happen because it's too good an opportunity for the opposition to use to gain political advantage whatever the govt does. Particularly now with Labour so weak, they'll want anything they can to use against the Tories, and this is so much more relevant and important to people than who paid for Boris's wallpaper.

So it's lose lose for the govt, hence the contant kicking into the long grass.

I remember listening to Andy Burnham making the same arguments when he was the Health Secretary.
What happens in other countries? Families take responsibility, presumably.
Old age, dementia and disability are not unique to the UK and there must be a feasible model somewhere else in the world.

Back in the day, there was no such thing as dementia or Alzheimer's - but some of my school friends had a 'dooh-lally' granny living with them.

It would have been shameful to put granny in a nursing home.  But things were different then. Most mothers didn't work (outside the home), granny was unlikely to have owned property to sell to pay for care, and granny would most likely die in her in her 60s.

colmel16

Care home fees vary region to region, up north where i live you can expect to pay around £36000pa. this is usually funded by incorporating SP, occupational pensions and savings before the house is taken into account. At the time i worked at a care home the average life expectancy was 18 months and the ratio of women to men was 4 to 1. taking that into account, the chances of a man going into a care home are low due to the wife usually outliving them and providing care until they pass and then usually ending up in care themselves due to no one left to look after them. Better to make sure you have quality time for your children  and grandchildren now and stay as healthy as possible.

Nebulous2

OldBeanz said:

zagfles said:

bostonerimus said:

The fact that people are looking for ways to reduce their net worth because of the means testing of social care shows that the system is not working for the people that need it. The Government has promised to reform this area of the care system, but I don't see much urgency just now...maybe they have other things on their plate. My father was "lucky" because he had to go into hospice care for cancer in the mid 1990s and it was all taken care off by the hospital and my Mum didn't have to worry about bills. Today if you don't have a similar medical condition and are just too old to cope with living on your own you might face a big bill. Without a viable social care insurance option (either private or government) the old in the UK are in a ridiculous situation. My Grandma was in care for a few years back in the 1970s and it was all paid for by the NHS and the local government. We should still have that available. So I'd like to pay a bit more NI to fund that.

The problem is it's a political football and has been for decades. Theresa May proposed a scheme in the 2017 election manifesto, it was dubbed the "dementia tax" and it's probably the main reason she lost her majority, from having 20%+ leads in the polls. Labour proposed a similar scheme when they were in power but chickened out because they though the Tories would use it for political gain. In both cases, peoples' inheritances were at risk, a big vote loser. More so than people suffering through lack of care it seems.

There needs to be cross party support for any scheme, but that's unlikely to happen because it's too good an opportunity for the opposition to use to gain political advantage whatever the govt does. Particularly now with Labour so weak, they'll want anything they can to use against the Tories, and this is so much more relevant and important to people than who paid for Boris's wallpaper.

So it's lose lose for the govt, hence the contant kicking into the long grass.

I remember listening to Andy Burnham making the same arguments when he was the Health Secretary.
What happens in other countries? Families take responsibility, presumably.
Old age, dementia and disability are not unique to the UK and there must be a feasible model somewhere else in the world.

One of my colleagues moved from Australia where she managed care homes.  People there paid a lump sum upfront to go into 'aged care'  There was an arrangement where they could take the lump sum from their pension tax-free to pay the care provider. 

jackieblack

sevenhills said:

xylophone said:

"Seven years" has nothing to do with "wilful deprivation of assets in order to obtain or increase a means tested benefit".

See https://www.carehome.co.uk/advice/deprivation-of-assets-to-avoid-paying-for-care-home-fees

The "seven year rule" relates to the length of time that has elapsed since a gift was made in order to have it qualify to be an exempt (from IHT) transfer.

I think it's quite likely that the local authority will use similar guidelines to HMRC for inheritance tax. Meaning that the person was in good health when the assets were transferred and they cannot see 7 years into the future, that they will have care-home costs.

You think wrongly 

german_keeper

sevenhills said:

A mental health patient that was sectioned, would not be expected to pay for their own care. Maybe they would, I await enlightenment.

Initial admission is under section 2 for 28 days. If not fit to leave after 28 days detention is under Section 3. All of this is NHS funded. When ready to leave a decision is then made under Section 117 whether ongoing care is state funded and what the nature of the care should be. Although I don't recall the phrase duty of care being used I read S117 as being that. Even though the individual may be able to fund themselves the state pays the bill to ensure they get the level of care they need. Presumably this is because so many people seem hell bent on paying as little as possible for the care of their loved ones. Or those loved ones are desperate to leave as much inheritance as possible.