Deprivation of assets vs just spending as you go along

Kirkmain

HouseMartin567 said:

Kirkmain said:

Brie said:

Look at your bank statements to see who you made payments to.  Presumably they or someone will have authority to get all your bank statements back however many years and they'll just start badgering the people to whomever the payments were made.

And as much as we would all like to treat friends and family why wouldn't you want to be in the best facility you can afford?

That's the thing. I have seen friends go into facilities, paying through the nose. £1500per week in one case. In the room next to them, arguably with a nicer view. Getting the same care. The same activities, the same food. Only this fella gets it all for free. Why? Because he was smart enough to spend his money and live life, and treat his family as he went along. Never owned a property, only rented. But on chatting to him, this fella who gets his room for free has been on more foreign holidays than my mate who now has to pay with his estate when he dies. Make it make sense please

In my experience, the situation you describe is a rarity, and that local authority funded care is likely to be on the lower class/quality of care home.

I'd say it's the rule rather than the exception. Speaking to the care home manager 60% of the residents in this home don't have to pay a penny, either because they have never worked or never owned anything. But their children visit driving BMWs and range rovers

Brie

It's the difference between small, sensible amounts and substantial ones.  Buying a violin for a promising young musician is very different from giving a young adult or best mate a yacht.  The LA weren't bothered that MiL paid for the 3 of us to go on holiday costing £2k+ but they did object to her selling her flat and giving a portion of the proceeds to use to buy a place where we looked after her for 5 years before care was required.

Brie

And no people cannot gift their children chunks of money to get on the property ladder. That's DoA.

Keep_pedalling

The big downside of this cunning plan, and a more likely outcome than ending up in residential care, is that you end up living in poverty for your final years.

p00hsticks

Keep_pedalling said:

The big downside of this cunning plan, and a more likely outcome than ending up in residential care, is that you end up living in poverty for your final years.

Good point - I believe it's still the exception rather than the norm for people to be spending their final years in care homes rather than their own properties, possible with daily visits from care workers. 

Albermarle

Kirkmain said:

Brie said:

If your talking about a few hundred to a few people every year then there may not be an issue.  If you mean giving away a million or two there would.  

You would still be eligible for care but the LA would look for someone to pay for it.  Obviously if your estate is more than your home they will take that, if you're not living in your home they will force that to be sold.  If more money is required they will go to those you gave your money to for payment even if they've already spent it.

But how would they know who I gave money to? Remember, I am needing care at this point, i probably have lost my faculties

Just because you need care does not mean you have lost your faculties. We have relatives in care at 99 and 100 and one is just a bit forgetful, and the other is sharp as a pin. Only went into care together a year ago.

Very nice new well staffed facility they are in, like a 5 star hotel,  definitely no LA funded people in there !

Kirkmain

Brie said:

And no people cannot gift their children chunks of money to get on the property ladder. That's DoA.

No it's not, it's called supporting your children, which is the essence of why anyone gets up in the morning to go to work.

Where do you draw the line? Is buying them nice clothes instead of Asda George DoA, is sending your kid to private school or paying for private tuition DoA. Or a parent who pays for a cleaner and a car valet instead of doing it it themselves so they can spend more time with their kids, is that DoA?

amanda1024

I’m worried by Brie’s story because (like most my generation) my parents gifted me some money to help buy a house. Or was the issue specifically that MiL sold her own home and the money came from that? I agree with Kirkmain! I suppose one thing would be to buy experiences - holidays etc - rather than gifting cash?

elsien

Deliberate deprivation of assets is where there is a reasonable presumption that you will need care and you give your money away specifically to avoid that.

Hence the difference between someone who’s been a spender, all their lives, and someone who starts treating their family to extravagant cars, holidays and gifts at the point at which they get a diagnosis. 

I’m just going to say what I always do, which is that money gives you choices and don’t underestimate the value of that. My job involves visiting older people both in their own home and in care homes and the money to buy the extra services on top of local authority funding is invaluable. 

Care homes at the cheaper end of the market don’t usually have a lot in the way of activities. They don’t have the staff to support people to access the community even to nip to the local shop to buy a paper. Paying a befriender for a couple of hours a week just to get out (for example) would help me save my sanity. 

The same applies for people who may lack capacity. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that people aren’t impacted by their type of care because of their dementia because that’s not the case. 

As a country, we cannot afford the social care bill that we have now. That will get worse in the future because we have an aging population, more of whom are likely to need care either at home or in a care home unless it’s funded somehow, it’s going be a race to the bottom.

And I would far rather my mother sold her house to have a decent quality of care in her final years if that’s what it takes, than she tries to pass it onto to us. We will manage, and we would rather see her have as good a quality of life as she can. 

maman

It agree that it does seem unfair.

 I think most people on mse would think that someone who spends all disposable income, has no savings, no pension provision is behaving irresponsibly but nevertheless later in life, the taxpayer picks up the tab. This could be for pension credit or housing benefit or care should they need it.

That being said, what posters have been explaining are the rules as they stand. It does offer you greater choice, but what it boils down to is if you handle your finances responsibly you have to pay.