Parents House and Care Fees

lisyloo

What they could do (with professional advice) is to put the house as tenants in common and pass on their half to the children on first death with provision for the survivor to remain.
This can be done legally but professionals need to be paid to set it up proprerly.

having had the local authority wanting to split parents up (in seperate homes) after 60 years of marriage and having seen some dreadful ones I would not recommend relying on the state.

their view that they have “paid in” and so deserve personal care is incorrect. 

zagubov

As it's Northern Ireland, isn't care for the elderly funded centrally via their equivalent of Britain's NHSs?

sheramber

Medical care during pregnancy and birth, their children being  educated, receiving  a state pension, any medical care needed over the years.

All these probably add up to more than they have 'paid into the system'.

lisyloo

zagubov said:

As it's Northern Ireland, isn't care for the elderly funded centrally via their equivalent of Britain's NHSs?

Care at home may be but not residential or nursing care.

lookstraightahead

Terrible idea. 

YoungBlueEyes

A proper person will correct me if I'm wrong, but can you even have 4 people on the deeds? I thought the limit is 3...?

p00hsticks

YoungBlueEyes said:

A proper person will correct me if I'm wrong, but can you even have 4 people on the deeds? I thought the limit is 3...?

My understanding is you can have up to four named owners - any more and it needs to be handled via some sort of trust

MEM62

TheJP said:

Hello all,

My parents are really concerned that should they need care from the state in the future their home (which is all they have to pass on to their 4 children) will be used to pay for it and this makes them a bit uneasy, they believe as they have paid into the 'system' all their lives they are owed care should they need it.

Their belief is incorrect.  The total cost of care is not covered.  They could attempt to deprive themselves of the asset that is their home but, if successful, they would leave themselves at the mercy of the local council as to where they spend their final days.  Retain the ability to fund yourself and you have some choice in the matter.  I know which I would prefer. 

Why people believe that the state (that is the rest of us) should fund an inheritance for their children by paying for their care so that they can preserve their assets is beyond me.           

TheJP

MEM62 said:

TheJP said:

Hello all,

My parents are really concerned that should they need care from the state in the future their home (which is all they have to pass on to their 4 children) will be used to pay for it and this makes them a bit uneasy, they believe as they have paid into the 'system' all their lives they are owed care should they need it.

Their belief is incorrect.  The total cost of care is not covered.  They could attempt to deprive themselves of the asset that is their home but, if successful, they would leave themselves at the mercy of the local council as to where they spend their final days.  Retain the ability to fund yourself and you have some choice in the matter.  I know which I would prefer. 

Why people believe that the state (that is the rest of us) should fund an inheritance for their children by paying for their care so that they can preserve their assets is beyond me.           

There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect what you have worked all your life for to pass onto your children, its a generational thing. Ask the majority of people my parents age (late 60s) whose property is their only asset to pass on to their children and they will all answer the question the same way.

I don't think its wrong for them to belief that their care should be covered in some way i just don't agree with their approach as it would be built on misinformation. I've managed to get them to listen to me and understand how the system works.

Thanks for your input all.

lookstraightahead

TheJP said:

MEM62 said:

TheJP said:

Hello all,

My parents are really concerned that should they need care from the state in the future their home (which is all they have to pass on to their 4 children) will be used to pay for it and this makes them a bit uneasy, they believe as they have paid into the 'system' all their lives they are owed care should they need it.

Their belief is incorrect.  The total cost of care is not covered.  They could attempt to deprive themselves of the asset that is their home but, if successful, they would leave themselves at the mercy of the local council as to where they spend their final days.  Retain the ability to fund yourself and you have some choice in the matter.  I know which I would prefer. 

Why people believe that the state (that is the rest of us) should fund an inheritance for their children by paying for their care so that they can preserve their assets is beyond me.           

There is nothing wrong with wanting to protect what you have worked all your life for to pass onto your children, its a generational thing. Ask the majority of people my parents age (late 60s) whose property is their only asset to pass on to their children and they will all answer the question the same way.

I don't think its wrong for them to belief that their care should be covered in some way i just don't agree with their approach as it would be built on misinformation. I've managed to get them to listen to me and understand how the system works.

Thanks for your input all.

The way I am protecting my children is to ensure they have the tools to be self sufficient. 

my parents are in their 80s and they have a house to help give them the best care should they need it. I'm glad they will be able to make some choices about their care should the need arise.

You don't work all of yours life. All things being equal, you work for about half of it. I don't get the generational thing?