Lose house when taken into care?

lisyloo

Flugelhorn said:

1404 said:

lisyloo said:

1404 said:

comeandgo 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.

That’s certainly not true where I am.  Those that can pay have choice.

Of course its true. Someone who's been on benefits their whole life (be it through choice or not) will get the same care for free at the end of their life as someone who's worked and gets stripped of their assets to pay for it. 

They will get get minimal basic care to keep them alive. They might be cold, dirty etc. (I've seen it). They won't have the choice of being close to friends and family or even a spouse.

That absolutely is not the same as people who have funds who can choose to have their hair done, play bingo, have organised activities daily and go out for day trips and can choose their home and be close to friends and family. They can even have their favourite tipple. Totally chalk and cheese.

State provision is a safety net to keep people alive. Anyone with a choice would not choose some of these place.

The wife and 2 adult children also have the option of looking after their father.

If so, then we'll find out what type of people they are. 

who knows what this gentleman is like after his probably brain damage - maybe has limited mobility / needs hoisting / transferring  / feeding - maybe he gets confused  / angry / lost / has changed personality - maybe he can't be left in the house alone (someone always has to be there). 

as I say, who knows but may be more than they can cope with for anything but a short time 

Absolutely there are times someone needs a care home.
Hoists fit around a riser recliner large chair so bathrooms in some care homes are big enough to accommodate the client, 2 carers and house that fits around an airchair. Normal houses cannot accommodate this.

lisyloo

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.

Correct, that's the way the system works. It's called means testing and it widely used across state benefits.

It's a shame that some people do no planning and only realise this when it's too late.

lisyloo

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.

Why not?
Why is it fitting for working people to pay through their taxes, whilst he sits on lots of assets he doesn't need?

lisyloo

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?  

If he pays with other assets they won't need to sell the house.
Why do you think they can't force a sale? (eventually).
As you've been told already -  initially they do a DPA (deferred payment agreement) which is a loan as they are well aware that houses are not liquid assets. In many cases they will want to put that on as a charge, but eventually, yes they'll go to court if necessary to get a court order.

There are a lot of unanswered questions here about exactly who owns what and what other assets there are.
The devil is in the detail.

otb666

My parents went into separate care homes since 2020.  Covid was a very frightening time and this certainly speeded up their frailness's. My dad died last year but my mother is still in care home.  Mum has another 7 years money then it will be LA.  She rarely wakes now and appears like she is drugged up. Tbh she could be anywhere now as has no faculties left. Mum is in her 90s but as most of her blood relatives lived over 100 there may well be a day when LA have to take over .  The family house has long gone but done its job of providing for them both and I certainly would not have wanted it any other way as still have sweet memories of them both without being tarnished by having to handle their personal needs especially as there was aggression in my father later stages.

RAS

Totally agree. 

My parent was assessed as needing enhanced care, so couldn't go into a standard care home. The one accepting her made plain that if her money ran out, they'd wait to fill a funded place. Never happened.

I_know_my_ABC_and_my_CMYK

One thing that can be considered is to put the house into a trust fund. You will need legal advice on this and it can be expensive. The only bank doing trust funds now are Metro Bank

Savvy_Sue

I_know_my_ABC_and_my_CMYK said:

One thing that can be considered is to put the house into a trust fund. You will need legal advice on this and it can be expensive. The only bank doing trust funds now are Metro Bank

It can be not only expensive, but also counter productive and have a host of unintended consequences. If any 'adviser' says "if you put your house in a trust you won't have to pay care home fees" it is generally time to run away very fast. 

teddysmum

 Several years ago, there were lots of stories on tv, about and advice programmes warning against using trusts intended to avoid care home fees. The ploys didn't work, yet solicitors were advising clients to use trusts.