Lose house when taken into care?

1404

Savvy_Sue said:

1404 said:

lisyloo said:

Flugelhorn said:

lisyloo said:

1404 said:

Savvy_Sue said:

If the care home fees can be paid from pensions, rental income etc then there will be no need to sell anything. But one way or another, unless he gets CHC funding, the care home fees will need to be paid.

Amazing, isn't it, that people who've barely worked a day in their lives will get the same care for free at the end of their lives.

Absolutely not.
I've checked about 20 homes in the Bristol/Bath area and my sister-in-law swore that her mother was going into some "over her dead body". Those were the ones where people were shivering without a blanket whilst the staff were chatting on their breaks, dirty toilets, stench or urine, dressings hanging off.

They also wanted to put FIL 15 miles from MIL for financial reasons after 60 years of marriage when a place was available together. We fought and won but I wouldn't want to be someone without strong advocates fighting for me.

I accept it's different in different areas/homes but you are wrong about "will get the same".

the things is that ultimately you might get the same - if you are in a self funding place and run out of money you may have to move if no-one pays the top up. 

I have seen lots of care homes and nursing homes (usually evenings, weekends and the middle of the night when it really matters)  and TBH some of the council run ones were rather nicer places than some of the private ones - more staff, more engagement, more events, staff who actually knew what was going on (doe help if you are the GP sometimes) 

I am happy to agree with "might" get the same (if fortunate i.e. one of these nice homes close to where they want to be and a place becomes available when they need it - a lot of them have waiting lists).
In the Bristol/Bath area the chances would be small.
There are some state of the art places that are purpose built e.g. wide corridors for a client to have assistance of 2 people when walking. They are fabulous but expensive.
Some others are a couple of homes knocked together and the are not an ideal layout.
If you have dimentia and/o are incontinent and/or need nursing (as opposed to residential) then the choices are reduced.

Absolutely do not agree with "will" get the same as someone who has choices.

Unless the person going into care is particularly wealthy, the funds from their assets will soon run out. 

How many people who are stripped of their assets to pay for their care actually fund the entirety of their care with those assets? My guess is few. The tax payer then picks up the rest of the bill.

It's another way of the state asset-stripping the populous. 

Define 'soon'? I have a relative who's been in a care home for nearly two years, paying for themselves once the local authority got their act together to carry out the financial assessment. It's not a top of the range place, but we're definitely not a 'wealthy' family. There should be enough assets to last, but since they've already outlived the original life expectancy by some margin, who knows? 

The point is, we have choice, and we wouldn't be afraid to use it if we weren't happy (yes, we have Power of Attorney). 

You seem to want a family with three houses to have Dad's care fully paid for by the state, even though he no longer needs any of those houses himself, and even though he was living separately from his spouse. If none of the houses are actually his, and he has no other assets, fair enough. Also fair enough if he is entitled to CHC funding. Otherwise ... why should he NOT contribute to the costs of his care? Why should I pay towards his care through my taxes? 

I'm not sure how soon (if at all) a person's funds may run out because I've not been involved in anything like this (elderly relatives going into care).  I assumed funds would run out quickly, but if the state/council pays a portion of it then maybe funds can last longer.

The issue isn't that I want the state to pay for the care.  It's that it doesn't seem particularly fitting that the estranged wife (who financially brought nothing to the 20 year marriage) gets to keep the family home and half of everything else, whilst the the husband (with the brain aneurysm who now needs care), who owned the family home prior to the marriage and was the bread winner throughout, now goes into care and sees his half of the estate dwindle to nothing.

elsien

No one is being “stripped of their assets” however many times you say it.
What they are doing is paying for the roof over their head, the food and utilities and the care and support that they need. Exactly the same as they would be doing if they were at home.

Also to add, that in the main council care homes don’t exist. They have been privatised. Someone who is not a self funder will instead be offered a private home at the lower end of the fee range. Some of these places do have self funders there, so yes the care and support can be the same whether you are paying or not, but there is little in the way of amenities and all the extras have to be paid for. And by extras I mean things we otherwise take for granted such as staff support to go to the local shop. 

Savvy_Sue

1404 said:

Savvy_Sue said:

1404 said:

lisyloo said:

Flugelhorn said:

lisyloo said:

1404 said:

Savvy_Sue said:

If the care home fees can be paid from pensions, rental income etc then there will be no need to sell anything. But one way or another, unless he gets CHC funding, the care home fees will need to be paid.

Amazing, isn't it, that people who've barely worked a day in their lives will get the same care for free at the end of their lives.

Absolutely not.
I've checked about 20 homes in the Bristol/Bath area and my sister-in-law swore that her mother was going into some "over her dead body". Those were the ones where people were shivering without a blanket whilst the staff were chatting on their breaks, dirty toilets, stench or urine, dressings hanging off.

They also wanted to put FIL 15 miles from MIL for financial reasons after 60 years of marriage when a place was available together. We fought and won but I wouldn't want to be someone without strong advocates fighting for me.

I accept it's different in different areas/homes but you are wrong about "will get the same".

the things is that ultimately you might get the same - if you are in a self funding place and run out of money you may have to move if no-one pays the top up. 

I have seen lots of care homes and nursing homes (usually evenings, weekends and the middle of the night when it really matters)  and TBH some of the council run ones were rather nicer places than some of the private ones - more staff, more engagement, more events, staff who actually knew what was going on (doe help if you are the GP sometimes) 

I am happy to agree with "might" get the same (if fortunate i.e. one of these nice homes close to where they want to be and a place becomes available when they need it - a lot of them have waiting lists).
In the Bristol/Bath area the chances would be small.
There are some state of the art places that are purpose built e.g. wide corridors for a client to have assistance of 2 people when walking. They are fabulous but expensive.
Some others are a couple of homes knocked together and the are not an ideal layout.
If you have dimentia and/o are incontinent and/or need nursing (as opposed to residential) then the choices are reduced.

Absolutely do not agree with "will" get the same as someone who has choices.

Unless the person going into care is particularly wealthy, the funds from their assets will soon run out. 

How many people who are stripped of their assets to pay for their care actually fund the entirety of their care with those assets? My guess is few. The tax payer then picks up the rest of the bill.

It's another way of the state asset-stripping the populous. 

Define 'soon'? I have a relative who's been in a care home for nearly two years, paying for themselves once the local authority got their act together to carry out the financial assessment. It's not a top of the range place, but we're definitely not a 'wealthy' family. There should be enough assets to last, but since they've already outlived the original life expectancy by some margin, who knows? 

The point is, we have choice, and we wouldn't be afraid to use it if we weren't happy (yes, we have Power of Attorney). 

You seem to want a family with three houses to have Dad's care fully paid for by the state, even though he no longer needs any of those houses himself, and even though he was living separately from his spouse. If none of the houses are actually his, and he has no other assets, fair enough. Also fair enough if he is entitled to CHC funding. Otherwise ... why should he NOT contribute to the costs of his care? Why should I pay towards his care through my taxes? 

I'm not sure how soon (if at all) a person's funds may run out because I've not been involved in anything like this (elderly relatives going into care).  I assumed funds would run out quickly, but if the state/council pays a portion of it then maybe funds can last longer.

The issue isn't that I want the state to pay for the care.  It's that it doesn't seem particularly fitting that the estranged wife (who financially brought nothing to the 20 year marriage) gets to keep the family home and half of everything else, whilst the the husband (with the brain aneurysm who now needs care), who owned the family home prior to the marriage and was the bread winner throughout, now goes into care and sees his half of the estate dwindle to nothing.

But it's not at all clear that this is what will happen. We don't know how any of the property is owned, we don't know what his assets are, and we don't know that his separated wife will get to stay where she is. IF they'd been living together then that property would be disregarded - but they weren't.

If everything is in his name, it will be a good long time before he runs out of money. If he's asset rich and cash poor there's a property which can be sold. 

Grumpy_chap

1404 said:

I have a family member in their 70s who recently had a brain aneurysm. It looks like they will have to remain in care. I am told their house may now be taken from them to pay for the care.

However, their spouse still lives in the house. As does one of their two adult children. There are two rental properties too, but I'm not sure who's name they are in (could even be the adult kids names).

Is losing the house a foregone conclusion? What happens regarding the spouse still living there? Anyone have experience of this? 

Some of the detail in this is a bit unclear, possibly because the OP is passing on information to assist another person.

A question that will be quite important is why are the two rental properties in the individual's children's names?
When did the properties get registered in the children's names?
Who receives the rental income from the properties?

It is quite possible that the local authority will consider Deprivation of Assets.

elsien

Rather than going through third parties, the spouse needs to read the Age UK link posted on page 1 which should answer most of their questions. 

1404

elsien said:

No one is being “stripped of their assets” however many times you say it.
What they are doing is paying for the roof over their head, the food and utilities and the care and support that they need. Exactly the same as they would be doing if they were at home.

Also to add, that in the main council care homes don’t exist. They have been privatised. Someone who is not a self funder will instead be offered a private home at the lower end of the fee range. Some of these places do have self funders there, so yes the care and support can be the same whether you are paying or not, but there is little in the way of amenities and all the extras have to be paid for. And by extras I mean things we otherwise take for granted such as staff support to go to the local shop. 

The distinction I'm making is between someone who's been on benefits their whole life and has no assets, and someone who has worked and has assets.  One gets care for free and the other loses their assets to pay for it.

1404

Grumpy_chap said:

1404 said:

I have a family member in their 70s who recently had a brain aneurysm. It looks like they will have to remain in care. I am told their house may now be taken from them to pay for the care.

However, their spouse still lives in the house. As does one of their two adult children. There are two rental properties too, but I'm not sure who's name they are in (could even be the adult kids names).

Is losing the house a foregone conclusion? What happens regarding the spouse still living there? Anyone have experience of this? 

Some of the detail in this is a bit unclear, possibly because the OP is passing on information to assist another person.

A question that will be quite important is why are the two rental properties in the individual's children's names?
When did the properties get registered in the children's names?
Who receives the rental income from the properties?

It is quite possible that the local authority will consider Deprivation of Assets.

The rental properties were intended to be given to the (now adult) children.  So that's why I'm not sure if they are in the names of the children or not.  Currently, one is lived in by one of the children and the husband had been staying there prior to the brain issue.

1404

Savvy_Sue said:

1404 said:

Savvy_Sue said:

1404 said:

lisyloo said:

Flugelhorn said:

lisyloo said:

1404 said:

Savvy_Sue said:

If the care home fees can be paid from pensions, rental income etc then there will be no need to sell anything. But one way or another, unless he gets CHC funding, the care home fees will need to be paid.

Amazing, isn't it, that people who've barely worked a day in their lives will get the same care for free at the end of their lives.

Absolutely not.
I've checked about 20 homes in the Bristol/Bath area and my sister-in-law swore that her mother was going into some "over her dead body". Those were the ones where people were shivering without a blanket whilst the staff were chatting on their breaks, dirty toilets, stench or urine, dressings hanging off.

They also wanted to put FIL 15 miles from MIL for financial reasons after 60 years of marriage when a place was available together. We fought and won but I wouldn't want to be someone without strong advocates fighting for me.

I accept it's different in different areas/homes but you are wrong about "will get the same".

the things is that ultimately you might get the same - if you are in a self funding place and run out of money you may have to move if no-one pays the top up. 

I have seen lots of care homes and nursing homes (usually evenings, weekends and the middle of the night when it really matters)  and TBH some of the council run ones were rather nicer places than some of the private ones - more staff, more engagement, more events, staff who actually knew what was going on (doe help if you are the GP sometimes) 

I am happy to agree with "might" get the same (if fortunate i.e. one of these nice homes close to where they want to be and a place becomes available when they need it - a lot of them have waiting lists).
In the Bristol/Bath area the chances would be small.
There are some state of the art places that are purpose built e.g. wide corridors for a client to have assistance of 2 people when walking. They are fabulous but expensive.
Some others are a couple of homes knocked together and the are not an ideal layout.
If you have dimentia and/o are incontinent and/or need nursing (as opposed to residential) then the choices are reduced.

Absolutely do not agree with "will" get the same as someone who has choices.

Unless the person going into care is particularly wealthy, the funds from their assets will soon run out. 

How many people who are stripped of their assets to pay for their care actually fund the entirety of their care with those assets? My guess is few. The tax payer then picks up the rest of the bill.

It's another way of the state asset-stripping the populous. 

Define 'soon'? I have a relative who's been in a care home for nearly two years, paying for themselves once the local authority got their act together to carry out the financial assessment. It's not a top of the range place, but we're definitely not a 'wealthy' family. There should be enough assets to last, but since they've already outlived the original life expectancy by some margin, who knows? 

The point is, we have choice, and we wouldn't be afraid to use it if we weren't happy (yes, we have Power of Attorney). 

You seem to want a family with three houses to have Dad's care fully paid for by the state, even though he no longer needs any of those houses himself, and even though he was living separately from his spouse. If none of the houses are actually his, and he has no other assets, fair enough. Also fair enough if he is entitled to CHC funding. Otherwise ... why should he NOT contribute to the costs of his care? Why should I pay towards his care through my taxes? 

I'm not sure how soon (if at all) a person's funds may run out because I've not been involved in anything like this (elderly relatives going into care).  I assumed funds would run out quickly, but if the state/council pays a portion of it then maybe funds can last longer.

The issue isn't that I want the state to pay for the care.  It's that it doesn't seem particularly fitting that the estranged wife (who financially brought nothing to the 20 year marriage) gets to keep the family home and half of everything else, whilst the the husband (with the brain aneurysm who now needs care), who owned the family home prior to the marriage and was the bread winner throughout, now goes into care and sees his half of the estate dwindle to nothing.

But it's not at all clear that this is what will happen. We don't know how any of the property is owned, we don't know what his assets are, and we don't know that his separated wife will get to stay where she is. IF they'd been living together then that property would be disregarded - but they weren't.

If everything is in his name, it will be a good long time before he runs out of money. If he's asset rich and cash poor there's a property which can be sold. 

They surely can't sell a house that the estranged wife lives in.  Maybe put a charge or claim on it as a maximum?  

elsien

1404 said:

elsien said:

No one is being “stripped of their assets” however many times you say it.
What they are doing is paying for the roof over their head, the food and utilities and the care and support that they need. Exactly the same as they would be doing if they were at home.

Also to add, that in the main council care homes don’t exist. They have been privatised. Someone who is not a self funder will instead be offered a private home at the lower end of the fee range. Some of these places do have self funders there, so yes the care and support can be the same whether you are paying or not, but there is little in the way of amenities and all the extras have to be paid for. And by extras I mean things we otherwise take for granted such as staff support to go to the local shop. 

The distinction I'm making is between someone who's been on benefits their whole life and has no assets, and someone who has worked and has assets.  One gets care for free and the other loses their assets to pay for it.

No. The person with assets uses them to have a better quality of life by a) having more choice of care home and b)having the money for the extras that are not provided as a matter of course. I know one chap who pays someone to take him out to go to the bookies once a week. That wouldn't happen for someone who is fully funded because they would only keep their £25 (ish) personal allowance which has to cover clothes and the basics. 

Savvy_Sue

1404 said:

Savvy_Sue said:

1404 said:

Savvy_Sue said:

1404 said:

lisyloo said:

Flugelhorn said:

lisyloo said:

1404 said:

Savvy_Sue said:

If the care home fees can be paid from pensions, rental income etc then there will be no need to sell anything. But one way or another, unless he gets CHC funding, the care home fees will need to be paid.

Amazing, isn't it, that people who've barely worked a day in their lives will get the same care for free at the end of their lives.

Absolutely not.
I've checked about 20 homes in the Bristol/Bath area and my sister-in-law swore that her mother was going into some "over her dead body". Those were the ones where people were shivering without a blanket whilst the staff were chatting on their breaks, dirty toilets, stench or urine, dressings hanging off.

They also wanted to put FIL 15 miles from MIL for financial reasons after 60 years of marriage when a place was available together. We fought and won but I wouldn't want to be someone without strong advocates fighting for me.

I accept it's different in different areas/homes but you are wrong about "will get the same".

the things is that ultimately you might get the same - if you are in a self funding place and run out of money you may have to move if no-one pays the top up. 

I have seen lots of care homes and nursing homes (usually evenings, weekends and the middle of the night when it really matters)  and TBH some of the council run ones were rather nicer places than some of the private ones - more staff, more engagement, more events, staff who actually knew what was going on (doe help if you are the GP sometimes) 

I am happy to agree with "might" get the same (if fortunate i.e. one of these nice homes close to where they want to be and a place becomes available when they need it - a lot of them have waiting lists).
In the Bristol/Bath area the chances would be small.
There are some state of the art places that are purpose built e.g. wide corridors for a client to have assistance of 2 people when walking. They are fabulous but expensive.
Some others are a couple of homes knocked together and the are not an ideal layout.
If you have dimentia and/o are incontinent and/or need nursing (as opposed to residential) then the choices are reduced.

Absolutely do not agree with "will" get the same as someone who has choices.

Unless the person going into care is particularly wealthy, the funds from their assets will soon run out. 

How many people who are stripped of their assets to pay for their care actually fund the entirety of their care with those assets? My guess is few. The tax payer then picks up the rest of the bill.

It's another way of the state asset-stripping the populous. 

Define 'soon'? I have a relative who's been in a care home for nearly two years, paying for themselves once the local authority got their act together to carry out the financial assessment. It's not a top of the range place, but we're definitely not a 'wealthy' family. There should be enough assets to last, but since they've already outlived the original life expectancy by some margin, who knows? 

The point is, we have choice, and we wouldn't be afraid to use it if we weren't happy (yes, we have Power of Attorney). 

You seem to want a family with three houses to have Dad's care fully paid for by the state, even though he no longer needs any of those houses himself, and even though he was living separately from his spouse. If none of the houses are actually his, and he has no other assets, fair enough. Also fair enough if he is entitled to CHC funding. Otherwise ... why should he NOT contribute to the costs of his care? Why should I pay towards his care through my taxes? 

I'm not sure how soon (if at all) a person's funds may run out because I've not been involved in anything like this (elderly relatives going into care).  I assumed funds would run out quickly, but if the state/council pays a portion of it then maybe funds can last longer.

The issue isn't that I want the state to pay for the care.  It's that it doesn't seem particularly fitting that the estranged wife (who financially brought nothing to the 20 year marriage) gets to keep the family home and half of everything else, whilst the the husband (with the brain aneurysm who now needs care), who owned the family home prior to the marriage and was the bread winner throughout, now goes into care and sees his half of the estate dwindle to nothing.

But it's not at all clear that this is what will happen. We don't know how any of the property is owned, we don't know what his assets are, and we don't know that his separated wife will get to stay where she is. IF they'd been living together then that property would be disregarded - but they weren't.

If everything is in his name, it will be a good long time before he runs out of money. If he's asset rich and cash poor there's a property which can be sold. 

They surely can't sell a house that the estranged wife lives in.  Maybe put a charge or claim on it as a maximum?  

Bear in mind that the local authority does not rush in seizing assets left right and centre as their first action.

If husband no longer has capacity to grant Power of Attorney (and it's not already in place) then someone needs to apply to the Court of Protection to be his Deputy. This takes far longer than PofA, and the wife or either of his sons can apply. If no-one from the family does, then eventually the local authority will take that step, but honestly they'd far rather the family took the responsibility.

Until that happens, no-one can sell anything.

elsien said:

Rather than going through third parties, the spouse needs to read the Age UK link posted on page 1 which should answer most of their questions. 

I have no idea what the OP's interest in all this is, sympathy seems to veer away from and back towards the separated wife's situation. But I agree that link is going to be more helpful than anything we can say, once it's clear what assets are owned by whom.