Deprivation of assets ?

elsien

So millionaire mother-in-law still wanted the local authority to pay for her care and was surprised when that wasn’t the case? 

Expecting your care to be funded so you can  leave a very large house in a very nice area to you  family was never going to fly.

sheramber

GDB2222 said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

Be careful. My cousin did this.
Admittedly, they were in a slightly wilder situation - they lived in a mostly mortgage free £200k house.
The MIL was a millionaire.

They combined and bought a lovely house in the Cotswolds. The MIL needed care and the council came after them.

Once she died, despite leaving everything to them, they had to downsize again.

If MIL was a millionaire, I think it was very good of her to use a home at the cheaper end of the scale, so as to maximise money for her family.

MIL didn’t downsize. The family had to downsize to pay outstanding care home fees. 

Albermarle

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

Be careful. My cousin did this.
Admittedly, they were in a slightly wilder situation - they lived in a mostly mortgage free £200k house.
The MIL was a millionaire.

They combined and bought a lovely house in the Cotswolds. The MIL needed care and the council came after them.

Once she died, despite leaving everything to them, they had to downsize again.

The council will only 'come after' people where the council has been paying the care fees, but the person has assets higher than the £23K? limit.
If the person can afford to self fund in the first place, then the council will take no interest in the financial position of the person involved, and would have no reason to come after them. 

RAS

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

Be careful. My cousin did this.
Admittedly, they were in a slightly wilder situation - they lived in a mostly mortgage free £200k house.
The MIL was a millionaire.

They combined and bought a lovely house in the Cotswolds. The MIL needed care and the council came after them.

Once she died, despite leaving everything to them, they had to downsize again.

So MIL contributed over 80% of value of the combined house? Not entirely surprising that the LA expected a proportion of that to be expended on MIL's care.

There was another rather different case reported some year's ago. Siblings agreed at Christmas dinner that mum and daughter should buy a house together where daughter could care for mum and her own disabled husband. It all came apart when the son realised that the daughter had registered the house in her sole name, and reported it. They found there are no POA and daughter had hoodwinked the EA and conveyancer.

It ended up with the daughter being allowed to continue care for mum and husband but when mum died or went into care, the house would be sold. If daughter and son inherited anything, daughter's share would pay for the legal costs and son would contribute to the legal costs.

GDB2222

sheramber said:

GDB2222 said:

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

Be careful. My cousin did this.
Admittedly, they were in a slightly wilder situation - they lived in a mostly mortgage free £200k house.
The MIL was a millionaire.

They combined and bought a lovely house in the Cotswolds. The MIL needed care and the council came after them.

Once she died, despite leaving everything to them, they had to downsize again.

If MIL was a millionaire, I think it was very good of her to use a home at the cheaper end of the scale, so as to maximise money for her family.

MIL didn’t downsize. The family had to downsize to pay outstanding care home fees. 

I was just remarking that some millionaires would prefer a swankier care home than the local authorities would provide. Although it’s the quality of the care that matters most, anyway, and that depends more on how well the place is managed.