You can gift any amount, prove me wrong

greyflanneltrousers

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81859905#Comment_81859905

Understood — that matches what I meant: the individual is treated as self-funding via notional capital, with the council stepping in only once that notional capital is deemed exhausted, and assessed care needs are still met throughout, with the issue being funding and level of provision rather than a refusal of care.

Grumpy_chap

The individual will be required to fund the capital from the notional capital they are deemed to have.

The Council may, if there are assets in the Estate such as a house, fund against the security of a charge on the property.

Outside of that, care will not be provided. It is up to the care-needer as to how they manage to fund the care from the notional capital they gave away. It would be very sad if the gift recipients were happy to have taken the money and then sit back and see their loved one suffer needlessly.

If the care should be self funded and self-funding refused, the Council will not provide care. Either a clear and obvious refusal linked to funding or a more obscure avoidance through the care needs assessment determining that the potential self funder has not met the needs threshold for care to be provided and funded by the Council. If the need has not been assessed as existing, then the Council has no concern about funding or not funding.

You will note that I was careful upthread to reference "

the choice of the type of care, where and when that care comes into force

"

Type of care can mean care at home, or sheltered accommodation, or nursing home

Where can mean at home, or choice of alternative provision, or a mixture

When, well, literally means when the care starts and this is the one the Council can more easily delay. Would the gift recipients really be happy to sit back in their sports car and see their loved one suffer? As @Aretnap mentioned, care home is often only required for a short duration and as @Keep_pedalling mentioned, the delay in access to Council-chosen (and funded) care can be painful even when there are no issues around whether the individual is capable of self-funding

elsien

With regards to deliberate deprivation of assets, the local authority would have to prove that there was a reasonably foreseeable chance of needing care at the time the money was gifted and that it was done with the purpose of avoiding future care costs.

From the information you have given that is something that they could struggle to prove, and the longer the time scale the more difficult it would be for them to do that.

So it may be that gifting now is fine but is something you would have to review in the future if circumstances change.

I think you may also be correct that the LA have a duty to meet assessed need and then chase other people for the money. But is that a situation you want to put the giftees into, having a legal battle with the local authority if it ever came to it?

Grumpy_chap

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81859980#Comment_81859980

No.

The care needs are not met throughout.

If the Council assess that care is required but does not fund because the individual is self-funding AND the individual does not self-fund because they gave away their assets to gift recipients who spent it all on a round the world cruise and won't step in to ensure their loved one has the care required, who, then do you think does fund the care?

The Council will not fund the care.

The individual should but won't / can't fund the care.

The care home will not fund the care.

The fairies will not fund the care.

There is no mystery donor to fund the care.

If any of these funding alternatives to self-funding existed, there would be no point in the DoA rules existing.

I struggle to understand why any individual would work hard and behave prudently so that they have liquid funds available as they approach their final years and then decide to gift all they worked for away this ensuring a final few years of unecessary hardship.

Maybe some people would be happy to take the money and not bother about the gifter suffering.

Grumpy_chap

@elsien

"

I think you may also be correct that the LA have a duty to meet assessed need and then chase other people for the money. 

"

Remember that the "assessed care need" might and will vary depending upon whether the individual is or is not self-funding.

I know when my father was at that stage, the process and speed of action changed immediately once Social Services became aware that he was self-funding

Silvertabby

Even if this whacky scheme worked, would the family member who said they would be happy with a council run home still be happy if said home was miles away from family, friends, and everything they had ever known and loved?

Sea_Shell

What if someone gave away everything, deliberately; those in receipt spent it all, with no assets to show for it, so they are themselves now skint too.

Especially for more modest amounts of savings, say £50k+ (eg if they all rent)

Would a local authority literally leave someone to rot, without any care provision, because of DoA?

Dead_keen

I haven't bothered to read the LLM generated stuff:

1. The individual needing care would not be left to rot.
   
2. The council won't be able to find a care home that will take them without knowing who is paying. In the end, they may be left in hospital for a while before the council pays. The council will then want paying (e.g. from the income of the individual, from other assets or from the recipient of the gift).

Sea_Shell

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81860283#Comment_81860283

Good luck getting blood out of a stone.

SouthCoastBoy

Wouldn't the family member have the flat to sell to fund the care home, or does somebody else also reside in the flat?