selling house to pay for care home

treliac

bryanb wrote: »

Thanks, found it, now need to understand the banding etc.

You're welcome

The banding relates to the level of needs of the resident and hence degree of care they should have provided. If your mother's needs were assessed by her LA, you should either know or be able, quite easily, to find out.

Her need for support and care will be met by a defined level of provision. This then translates into a 'band' which specifies the cost of her care.

monkeyspanner

treliac wrote: »

You're welcome

The banding relates to the level of needs of the resident and hence degree of care they should have provided. If your mother's needs were assessed by her LA, you should either know or be able, quite easily, to find out.

Her need for support and care will be met by a defined level of provision. This then translates into a 'band' which specifies the cost of her care.

We have tried in the past to obtain the criteria for banding decisions from our Social Services department without any success. The manager of my MIL's care home tells us she often has to challenge the band so that the residents care needs can be properly met. It is obviously in the Social Services best interests as regards their finances if care needs are underestimated.

The common practice of care homes agreeing (being bullied into) reduced prices for Social Services is a scandal. Self funding residents of care homes are selling their homes in order to pay a commercial rate for their care and then subsidise council funded residents. Then to rub salt into this wound if a self funding resident's saving reduce to the maximum savings limit and the council have to take over supporting funding the resident can be forced to move care homes, or the care home has to reduce their fee to the council level, or the residents relatives/friends have to make top up payments so that the resident can remain in the care home.

monkeyspanner

Cosmick1 wrote: »

Under government rules :mad:, my aunt is having to sell her house to pay for her care home costs. Has anyone any advise please on where best to invest her sale money. She will have circa £100k and will have to pay from that her care costs circa 1.5k per month. Where best to save/invest this while it dwindles away? Thanks

Here are a couple of sites you may wish to look at.
www.counselandcare.org.uk has some very good fact sheets on funding of care.
www.nhfa.co.uk specialising in care funding solutions.

You don't mention your Aunt's medical status. If she is seriously ill and her medical needs outweigh her domestic needs then she may be eligable for Continuing Healthcare funding from the local NHS PCT. This funding is not means tested but is difficult to obtain.

Your Aunt could decide to not sell the house and to rent it out but any net rental income from this would be assessed and would effectively reduce the support given by the Local council. For this reason I have heard some people advised not to rent but to keep the house empty. If, however, the house would need renovation/repair prior to rental then this might be viewed as an allowable expense against the rental income. This would mean that the repairs could be financed in this way prior to a future sale. Your aunt might however decide it would be better to sell quickly to avoid the current any future market price reductions.

treliac

monkeyspanner wrote: »

We have tried in the past to obtain the criteria for banding decisions from our Social Services department without any success.

This is information the public is entitled to have. I would go to my county councillor if I felt strongly enough.

The manager of my MIL's care home tells us she often has to challenge the band so that the residents care needs can be properly met. It is obviously in the Social Services best interests as regards their finances if care needs are underestimated.

Sounds highly unethical and is not something that happens in my authority. The LA has a duty to ensure that people are having their needs properly met. Indeed, they would be leaving themselves open to the risk of legal action if they were deliberately 'underproviding' for people and thus leaving them at risk. The fundamental responsibility of a social services department is to protect people from living in situations of risk.

Assessments should involve the participation of the client, their next of kin and any other relevant parties. There is a legal right to have access to one's own assessment report.

If a resident's needs change, indicating an increased level of care is required, a re-assessment should be readily undertaken.

The common practice of care homes agreeing (being bullied into) reduced prices for Social Services is a scandal. Self funding residents of care homes are selling their homes in order to pay a commercial rate for their care and then subsidise council funded residents. Then to rub salt into this wound if a self funding resident's saving reduce to the maximum savings limit and the council have to take over supporting funding the resident can be forced to move care homes, or the care home has to reduce their fee to the council level, or the residents relatives/friends have to make top up payments so that the resident can remain in the care home.

No-one forces care homes to accept anything. Many do not take council funded residents at all. They all have a choice whether to do so or not.

If they want council 'business' they have to agree to the same terms and conditions, for the same provision of care, as other homes. Anything else would not be fair would it?

The fact is that many homes agree to LA contracts and make a satisfactory living from them. You could turn the thinking around in relation to those who need or want to make a larger profit. Either way, they do have a choice.

It's a pity that you feel so negative. Many people are satisfied and happy with the care they and their loved ones receive in care homes. Also with the assistance and support they receive from their local authority.

At the end of the day, LAs are implementing government policy because it is central government that decides funding levels for the services we receive. Politicians decide how much they think the people of this country are prepared to contribute through taxes in order to fund these services.

monkeyspanner

Treliac
I am happy to hear you do not recognise this approach from your experience of service provision in your area. It is however our experience of the provision in my MIL's area.

You are right that no-one forces the care home to accept council funding residents but in those homes which do, the self funding residents do not have a choice (other than changing care homes)but to comply with the charges imposed by the home. Last year this meant my MIL was paying £415 per week as opposed to £314 paid by council supported residents for the same assessed level of care. I hope you can accept that this is inequitable and that the care homes which are reliant on the council for so much of their business (75% in this case)have little choice but to accept the council rates.

I must emphasise here that we are entirely happy with MIL's care home it could not be better and I did not intend to imply otherwise.

I have to say that the Social Services and MIL's care manager were entirely unhelpful. They could not disengage fast enough when they discovered MIL had savings and would probably be self funding. They provided no help in identifying a suitable care home, did not detail the funding system, failed to answer phone calls and e-mails, were obstructive in supplying a 12 week disregard while MIL's property sale was completed, told us clients were expected to do there own research into the systems etc. etc.. Complaints and the involvement of MIL's MP have been completely unproductive and have been blocked up to and including the level of Director of Social Services. God help anyone in this area who does not have a advocate and has to rely on Social Services.

It has little to do with government policy and funding levels and more to do with a completely misdirected emphasis away from provision of care and onto preventing clients gaining access to funds. This misguided emphsis wastes a large proportion of the funds which the government provide. IMHO.

bryanb

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Treliac
I am happy to hear you do not recognise this approach from your experience of service provision in your area. It is however our experience of the provision in my MIL's area.

You are right that no-one forces the care home to accept council funding residents but in those homes which do, the self funding residents do not have a choice (other than changing care homes)but to comply with the charges imposed by the home. Last year this meant my MIL was paying £415 per week as opposed to £314 paid by council supported residents for the same assessed level of care. I hope you can accept that this is inequitable and that the care homes which are reliant on the council for so much of their business (75% in this case)have little choice but to accept the council rates.

I must emphasise here that we are entirely happy with MIL's care home it could not be better and I did not intend to imply otherwise.

I have to say that the Social Services and MIL's care manager were entirely unhelpful. They could not disengage fast enough when they discovered MIL had savings and would probably be self funding. They provided no help in identifying a suitable care home, did not detail the funding system, failed to answer phone calls and e-mails, were obstructive in supplying a 12 week disregard while MIL's property sale was completed, told us clients were expected to do there own research into the systems etc. etc.. Complaints and the involvement of MIL's MP have been completely unproductive and have been blocked up to and including the level of Director of Social Services. God help anyone in this area who does not have a advocate and has to rely on Social Services.

It has little to do with government policy and funding levels and more to do with a completely misdirected emphasis away from provision of care and onto preventing clients gaining access to funds. This misguided emphsis wastes a large proportion of the funds which the government provide. IMHO.

Sounds as though your LA is the same as ours. BB