Deprivation of assets for Social Care Funding assessment

HobgoblinBT

OP, does mother in law receive attendance allowance?  If she requires 4 care visits per day, it sounds like she needs quite a lot of assistance so may be eligible.

RAS

What you may find is that once the LA is involved they refuse to fund domiciliary care costs once those exceed the price of the cheapest residential care home where they can place mum. 

Hopefully she's currently receiving attendance allowance and has some income? 

elsien

It’s not safeguarding her money for her, though, is it?

Her money should be used for whatever she needs during her lifetime.

Their plan is to safeguard her money for themselves, which is absolutely not the same thing and is against the terms of the LPA

If work genuinely need doing, then do it. Your initial post reads as if some of the work is to get rid of some of her money on maintenance that won’t benefit her. Not ok.

The LPAs need to stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about your mother. 

What you all need to remind yourself of is that her money is not slowly disappearing. It is being used to pay for her care needs and to give her a better quality of life. Which is why we save, as insurance for the future. Our own future. 

Savvy_Sue

elsien said:

What you all need to remind yourself of is that her money is not slowly disappearing. It is being used to pay for her care needs and to give her a better quality of life. Which is why we save, as insurance for the future. Our own future. 

What an excellent way of putting it! 

Cyclamen

Can i please reply from the view of someone who has social care and owns their own home.

I have social care at home .. and my 'hours' are likely more than your Mums. The need for four visits a day does not automatically mean a care home would be best.. please check the individuals need... it may mean that she would benefit from longer visits a daytime person, or even live in. Social services arent always the most proactive at offering longer care packages so well worth looking at the care act legislation first.  

The council may try to choose the cheaper option if that is a care home (epecially if house to sell as that would be used to fund) but please only consider this if it is right for Mum.  They are not allowed under the care act rules to refuse care at home funding if that is most appropriate for your Mum.

I fully intend to stay at home as long as is possible and appropriate for me even if that means live in carers. Then the house becomes funds to make sure i can have a good care home and my younger family members are fully on board with making that happen. If there is money left its theirs but no expectation of inheritance beyond photo albums, plants and furniture. 

I now there is often a time when a care home is the right choice but this shouldn't be judged on how many visit/ hours but wether its the right place for the individual.  I was offered a care home at 30 years old and know there is one looming as i age or health deteriorates.. but for me I am better at home. 

 

Albermarle

Cyclamen said:

Can i please reply from the view of someone who has social care and owns their own home.

I have social care at home .. and my 'hours' are likely more than your Mums. The need for four visits a day does not automatically mean a care home would be best.. please check the individuals need... it may mean that she would benefit from longer visits a daytime person, or even live in. Social services arent always the most proactive at offering longer care packages so well worth looking at the care act legislation first.  

The council may try to choose the cheaper option if that is a care home (epecially if house to sell as that would be used to fund) but please only consider this if it is right for Mum.  They are not allowed under the care act rules to refuse care at home funding if that is most appropriate for your Mum.

I fully intend to stay at home as long as is possible and appropriate for me even if that means live in carers. Then the house becomes funds to make sure i can have a good care home and my younger family members are fully on board with making that happen. If there is money left its theirs but no expectation of inheritance beyond photo albums, plants and furniture. 

I now there is often a time when a care home is the right choice but this shouldn't be judged on how many visit/ hours but wether its the right place for the individual.  I was offered a care home at 30 years old and know there is one looming as i age or health deteriorates.. but for me I am better at home. 

 

I agree with everything you say but there is a point that you maybe missed.

It is not just about what the council want. Many people who would be clearly better off in a care home, refuse to go.

elsien

Also in practice the situation is very different for older people that it is for younger people with disabilities, where I am at least. There is a presumption that older people are less likely to be having an independent life accessing the community. This is partly down to cost - aging population with people who years ago would have passed way by now  so more people needing care, and it is simply not affordable for all those people to be maintained at home as their support needs get higher, via the public purse. Without wanting to get political, something that successive governments have found to be too much of an electoral minefield to tackle.

In terms of appropriate care, the ombudsman decisions and judicial reviews have shown that cost restraints can be a relevant factor in the type of care that is offered.  So where someone's needs can be met in residential care then unless there is a significant impact on wellbeing then the local authority  can say that they will  not fund extra care at home over and above the usual 4 or 5 calls a day. 

Spendless

I'm not sure I'm following. If the house remains in the current state and the lady goes into care then her money in the bank and when that runs out her money from the 'needs updating house' sale will pay for it.

If renovations are done, then there's less money in the bank but the house will presumably sell for more than it would have done otherwise  and this money pays for the lady's care.

Either way the lady would pay for her care. 

Cyclamen

Gosh how ageist the system is as well as broken!  The ombudsman / court reviews for younger people have sided with the person staying at home if that is the most appropriate place for them.  I do fully understand that sheltered housing and care homes can be excellent places and the right place at the right time.  They can provide community, friendship and improve quality of life. But the thought of someone who is capable of quality of life at home that chooses to stay at home being forced into a care home due to age when us younger folk (and i'm well into middle age) are allowed and supported to stay home. 

Our older folk deserve more than getting up, lunch, tea and bed calls .. how ever that comes either extra social care, a bus/taxi to day centre or club.  

Growing older with disabilities scares the heck out of me.. 

I was just a little surprised to see a few comments saying anymore than 4 visits and its care home.. when the care act makes provision for accessing the community, faith, family relationships etc..  so if its appropriate for the person in the comments please do try and put up a fight for your loved one to stay where they and you agree is appropriate. 

I know the pot of money is not endless.. but looking after people feels pretty blooming important to prioritise as a society. 

elsien

@Spendless I think they are presuming that she will be able to stay at home with the care calls.

So spending the money on the house, which is disregarded for the domiciliary means test, means that she will hit the 23K much more quickly, Local authority will pick up the bill and the family will still have the extra cash in the form of a more valuable house to sell at the end of it. 

@Cyclamen, I agree with you. It is ageist. 

Younger people  in supported living can get funding for 24 hour care much more easily than older people except in rare circumstances. 

Interesting case here If you scroll down towards the end bit referencing section 10.27 of  the care act guidance. 
https://www.lgo.org.uk/decisions/adult-care-services/assessment-and-care-plan/22-010-973 
Which is trying to explore the dichotomy between the guidance saying that resources are a relevant factor while also saying that people need to be looked at on an individual basis, which is the point you are making. 

So councils shouldn’t  be saying a blanket “we don’t do 24 hour care.” But there are very few cases where it has happened in practice unless someone has been so distressed that moving is clearly not in their best interests and you have to fight incredibly hard. 

The usual route is that the person goes into hospital, for whatever reason. Hospital raises concerns about safe discharge so they go to an assessment bed and by the time the assessment is carried out everyone saying they have  settled there so it’s clearly the best option. Not saying I agree with that, just explaining how it comes about. 

I would always say to people get legal advice, but legal aid is means tested and the last time I tried to get a solicitor for a care act challenge none of them had capacity to take it on. 

And back to the whole social care funding debate everyone agrees it is needed, but no one wants to pay for it via taxes or any other route.  

With apologies for going off topic, but it is a discussion that needs to be had.