Deprivation of assets question: Related hypothetical question

AssemblyGMX

lRe the post:  "

"transfered mother in laws house to my wife and sister 15 years ago to avoid future care home costs"

does not apply to me but has got me thinking.

With no intention of cheating, and, not now or in the past being eligible for or claiming government means tested benefits, some years ago and long before my health deteriorated, I gifted several thousand pounds (a lot of money to them) to a relative.  

I could afford to do that at the time with (not then or now) no prospect of needing nursing home care.  In the, hopefully unlikely situtation where I need nursing home care in future, would my relative or me have to repay the gift I made, in good faith, all those years ago? 

elsien

No because the local authority have to prove the intention. If you were younger, healthy, had assets and were (for example) helping the younger generation to get a step on the ladder that’s really not an issue. 

elsien

In the other thread you were thinking about the mother-in-law may have made quite an unwise decision which could have turned out very differently for her because even if you put care home fees to one side she basically gave all her security, the opportunity to downsize if she needed to, put the home at risk if either of her daughters got divorced or got into financial difficulty and as a gift with a reservations there are tax implications .

Baldytyke88

AssemblyGMX said:

With no intention of cheating, and, not now or in the past being eligible for or claiming government means tested benefits, some years ago and long before my health deteriorated, I gifted several thousand pounds (a lot of money to them) to a relative.  

I could afford to do that at the time with (not then or now) no prospect of needing nursing home care.  In the, hopefully unlikely situtation where I need nursing home care in future, would my relative or me have to repay the gift I made, in good faith, all those years ago? 

If the Council argues "Deliberate Deprivation": If they decide the sole purpose was to avoid care fees, they can treat her as still owning the property (called "notional capital"). This means she may be treated as a self-funder (if assets are over £23,250 in England) even though she no longer owns the house.

There is no 7 year rule in relation to care costs, in practice, I have never read about a council doing the above from many years ago. I relative did the same, although I don't know how many years ago it was, everything went to the Son.

elsien

I don’t think Local  authorities follow upon deprivation of assets quite as much as it suggested on here, Time  will be a factor  because it’s hard to prove intention with things that happened a longer time ago.
It may start to happen more often with local authorities being more strapped for cash but that aside I don’t think people always think through all the other implications when they come up with these plans. 

For me and my family the main factor remains that money gives you choices you may not otherwise have, 

Rubyroobs

elsien said:

I don’t think Local  authorities follow upon deprivation of assets quite as much as it suggested on here, Time  will be a factor  because it’s hard to prove intention with things that happened a longer time ago.
It may start to happen more often with local authorities being more strapped for cash but that aside I don’t think people always think through all the other implications when they come up with these plans. 

For me and my family the main factor remains that money gives you choices you may not otherwise have, 

Exactly. Having potentially hundreds of thousands to use for care will give choices of a better Nursing home and being able to get the care home best suited to the persons needs. If funded by the LA there may not be that choice, although self funders and LA funded are cared for alongside each other. I have an 88 year old dad myself who is getting frailer by the day. We have never factored potential inheritance into any plans because in the event of him becoming too frail to look after himself we would want him to have the best care.

Altior

Rubyroobs said:

elsien said:

I don’t think Local  authorities follow upon deprivation of assets quite as much as it suggested on here, Time  will be a factor  because it’s hard to prove intention with things that happened a longer time ago.
It may start to happen more often with local authorities being more strapped for cash but that aside I don’t think people always think through all the other implications when they come up with these plans. 

For me and my family the main factor remains that money gives you choices you may not otherwise have, 

Exactly. Having potentially hundreds of thousands to use for care will give choices of a better Nursing home and being able to get the care home best suited to the persons needs. If funded by the LA there may not be that choice, although self funders and LA funded are cared for alongside each other. I have an 88 year old dad myself who is getting frailer by the day. We have never factored potential inheritance into any plans because in the event of him becoming too frail to look after himself we would want him to have the best care.

Since this thread is hypothetical, do you know what happens if an individual is able to self fund and selects a great home for their needs, and then eventually runs out of their own capital? Does the council then fund the more appropriate (and quite possibly more expensive) home. Or (for the want of a better phrase) do they essentially get kicked out to a LA one? 

elsien

Altior 

Rubyroobs said:

elsien said:

I don’t think Local  authorities follow upon deprivation of assets quite as much as it suggested on here, Time  will be a factor  because it’s hard to prove intention with things that happened a longer time ago.
It may start to happen more often with local authorities being more strapped for cash but that aside I don’t think people always think through all the other implications when they come up with these plans. 

For me and my family the main factor remains that money gives you choices you may not otherwise have, 

Exactly. Having potentially hundreds of thousands to use for care will give choices of a better Nursing home and being able to get the care home best suited to the persons needs. If funded by the LA there may not be that choice, although self funders and LA funded are cared for alongside each other. I have an 88 year old dad myself who is getting frailer by the day. We have never factored potential inheritance into any plans because in the event of him becoming too frail to look after himself we would want him to have the best care.

Since this thread is hypothetical, do you know what happens if an individual is able to self fund and selects a great home for their needs, and then eventually runs out of their own capital? Does the council then fund the more appropriate (and quite possibly more expensive) home. Or (for the want of a better phrase) do they essentially get kicked out to a LA one? 

it depends. The local authority sometimes will agree a small top up if the care home meets them in the middle. Family could agree to a voluntary third-party top up, if they can afford it to allow the person to stay. There have to be cheaper homes that will meet the person’s assessed needs. Those needs would include proximity to people important to you. Which is why a care act needs assessment must be done at the point in the person stop self funding. 

 Then there is a discussion around  bestinterests and the impact on the person of having to move (If they don’t have capacity). That will depend on the funding gap, how skint your local authority is, what vacancies there are and how much of a fight you can put up. 

realistically if there’s a big funding gap that can’t be met in the middle and other suitable options then yes in the majority of cases the person will have to move.
I have known families to choose really expensive care homes knowing that the money will only last a few months - that is never going to fly.

KxMx

I've said over and over those able to self fund get to choose not only where they go, but when they go, which is just as important. 

Saves the person in need plus their families years in some cases, of stress, anxiety and worry.

I've known social services keep someone at home three years past when they really needed to be in residential care. They would only fund the maximum 4 visits a day, and pressured the family to call in on top.

Multiple other professionals involved also pushed for residential care but social services wouldn't pay, until the person had a severe fall & Hospital refused discharge to any setting other than residential.

Even then the person isn't safe as funding reviewed regularly, one attempt at discharge to a warden flat went quite far (by a new social worker) before the person's LPA managed to stop it. 

Altior

elsien said:

Altior 

Rubyroobs said:

elsien said:

I don’t think Local  authorities follow upon deprivation of assets quite as much as it suggested on here, Time  will be a factor  because it’s hard to prove intention with things that happened a longer time ago.
It may start to happen more often with local authorities being more strapped for cash but that aside I don’t think people always think through all the other implications when they come up with these plans. 

For me and my family the main factor remains that money gives you choices you may not otherwise have, 

Exactly. Having potentially hundreds of thousands to use for care will give choices of a better Nursing home and being able to get the care home best suited to the persons needs. If funded by the LA there may not be that choice, although self funders and LA funded are cared for alongside each other. I have an 88 year old dad myself who is getting frailer by the day. We have never factored potential inheritance into any plans because in the event of him becoming too frail to look after himself we would want him to have the best care.

Since this thread is hypothetical, do you know what happens if an individual is able to self fund and selects a great home for their needs, and then eventually runs out of their own capital? Does the council then fund the more appropriate (and quite possibly more expensive) home. Or (for the want of a better phrase) do they essentially get kicked out to a LA one? 

it depends. The local authority sometimes will agree a small top up if the care home meets them in the middle. Family could agree to a voluntary third-party top up, if they can afford it to allow the person to stay. Then there is a discussion around  bestinterests and the impact on the person of having to move (If they don’t have capacity). That will depend on the funding gap, how skint your local authority is and how much of a fight you can put up. 

realistically if there’s a big funding gap that can’t be met in the middle then yes in the majority of cases the person will have to move.

Thanks. Strikes me there are a plethora of considerations. For example, to me, the risk of having to be moved and the disruption involved is significant. 

The underlying reason for the question is not a hypothetical one. I am estranged from my only sibling and due to this, effectively cut out of any key decision making. As my remaining parent has absolute faith in my sibling, and none in me. This has been the case for decades though. I have absolutely no trust in my sibling at all to do what's right for my remaining parent. To be clear I am on speaking terms to my remaining parent, but they aren't in a position to discuss any of their finances with me (under strict instruction not to do so), and they have also given sole PoA to my sibling. 

I am aware that my parent was diagnosed with dementia after a fall, and that they were moved into a 'private' care home. Worth noting perhaps that they fall fairly regularly, even when I was a child, born clumsy. Anyhow I also know that my parent's property was completely gutted of their possessions and sold on the open market (the right move pictures when the property was on the market are of an unfurnished property). No idea what happened to all of their things. I do know that the property was sold in their own name and what it fetched as that info is publicly available (there was no mortgage). I also know what my parent's guaranteed income was before any benefits outside of pension, and that they should have had substantial cash assets, plus obviously the proceeds of the disposal.

My (very) strong instinct is that my sibling created a joint account before any of this was put into motion. It's an impossible situation really, and there's an outside chance that everything done has been so with the best of intentions. It's much more likely that my parent will 'run out' of cash whilst supporting the care home fees privately. It would be good to know what happens to my parent when the money runs out. It's always been on my mind. So the answer is it depends, I guess. 

elsien

What I would add as well is the more expensive is not a guarantee of quality. The most expensive care home in my area I have reported to CQC many times for inadequate standards of care and safeguardings. High use of agency staff and several managers coming and going over a 12 month period.

There are very few local authority owned care homes still around nowadays (In England at least). Most have been TUPE'd out in to the private sector. The cheaper end of the spectrum can provide good day-to-day hands on care but with much fewer facilities or opportunities. Many do not support people to access the community for leisure purposes or often even to support with hospital appointments because they don't have the staff. If there is no family to accompany then the person may well be sent off on their own via hospital transport or (self-funded taxi if safe to do so.) Which if they are confused may not always lead to a proper sharing of information between care home and medical professional.

If you are local authority funded then you generally just have the £30 personal allowance you get to keep from your pensions. That has to pay for clothes, anything outside of essential toiletries, chiropody, hairdresser etc and most things leisure related outside of the odd bingo or chucking a  ball around session. It  doesn't go far. I go into a care home that has just started charging residents £60 for two hours out, or £100 for a full day. Local authority won't pay that, £30 allowance is not going to cover it.  
Like I said, money gives choices and opportunities that may not be there otherwise.