care Home fees, can I retain the family bungalow

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

They would if the car was half owned by the person needing care. The other half of the house was put into trust simply as a means to protect that asset from being used for care costs, if the the other owner wants to keep the house (or car) then they have to find the funds to do so.

How do you know that? We have the same provision as that in our wills. Whoever dies first, our son will inherit their half in a trust. But we didn't do it to avoid care home fees, just thought that due to our particular family circumstances it would be better if he inherited sooner rather than later.

The solicitor suggested the trust, it wasn't our idea.

We are happy to pay for any care and could fund it for a few years without touching the property, so have no need to do it for that reason.

I am not being harsh.

My MiL's house (OH's childhood home) is just about to be marketed to fund her residential care. My parents are both elderly homeowners and my mother has been severely disabled for a couple of decades (I share her care with my very nearly 81-year-old father but do not live with them).

Despite requiring 24/7 care my mother will not qualify for NHS funding and both parents are highly likely to be self-funders should either require residential care. Because my mother acquired a disabling condition in her early 50s the odds have always been higher for our family that she will require residential care and for longer than average.

All of the above people fall into the 'worked hard and sacrificed to buy their home' category.

Our entire welfare system struggles to differentiate between the reckless and the unlucky, and luck plays a big part in whether or not any of us will require residential care. It's up to us as individuals to insure ourselves against bad luck.

The bottom line is that my parents' hard work has also enabled their independence throughout my mum's many years of disability, and will provide the best available residential care should either need it. Parents place a high value on the self-respect that their independence gives. Despite knowing for many years that my mum was at high risk of requiring residential care they chose not to take any steps to protect the house from the means-test as any such steps would have compromised their control of their asset.

My dad had a recent spell of ill-health that required several long hospitals stays (and long post-op recoveries). I moved into my parents' home for several weeks on each occasion. This situation catalysed a discussion of their future care needs as I am not able to care for mum 24/7 on a live-in, long-term basis. When my dad can no longer share her care a residential home is the only viable alternative. If that happens their home will be excluded from the means test during my dad's lifetime but at the expense of the choice/quality of residential home as she would have to be LA-funded in order that dad can be housed. If dad predeceases her then she will immediately qualify as a self-funder and their home would need to be sold.

My dad has the same chance as everyone else of requiring residential care and it's possible that both parents will be concurrent self-funders.

I have never expected support from my parents. I don't expect support from them after they die. They have passed-on their attitude of self-sufficiency and independence. Reliance on the state = a loss of choice and control. I don't want that for myself so why should I expect my parents to surrender their hard-won independence in order to provide me with a financial benefit?

Our elderly parents' home is usually their biggest asset and giver of financial security. Many will need it to provide independence and choice in old age. Why should they compromise their final years in order to fulfil our expectations of 'property-as-inheritance'? Why should the taxpayer (mostly younger, working people) pick-up the tab to do likewise?

Currently have one relative in a care home, their house was sold and paying fees of £1,300 per week for excellent care in a beautiful home. Her LA warned us they won't pick up the fees if the money runs out, the home they are willing to pay for is £600 a week and she would hate it. So my "inheritance" is disappearing at a very rapid rate but it is her money and should be spent for her comfort.

humptydumptybits wrote: »

Currently have one relative in a care home, their house was sold and paying fees of £1,300 per week for excellent care in a beautiful home. Her LA warned us they won't pick up the fees if the money runs out, the home they are willing to pay for is £600 a week and she would hate it. So my "inheritance" is disappearing at a very rapid rate but it is her money and should be spent for her comfort.

Large sum of money to find the when the money runs out? My Mum was self funding and the contract I signed it was clear that the family would have to pay any form of top up. Best will in the world, we would not have been able to afford that sort of sum of money each week.

humptydumptybits wrote: »

She has a good pension that would pay half of it so if the council will pay £600 and she can pay £650 it doesn't leave much. I couldn't leave her in a dump, the place the council favoured was a dump, and if it comes to it will pay the £50. She has money from her house we have invested so she will need to live well past 100 before it is an issue.

Thinking about it I might be in a home by the time her money runs out:eek:

I think you may find that the LA take any pension income (state and private) as an offset against their funding element so this unfortunately doesn't necessarily help with the shortfall.

When we were looking at potential homes for the MiL we had assumed that if she ran out of money (i.e. got down to £23,250 of savings) and qualified for LA funding that a) she could use the £23,250 towards the shortfall and b) she could also use her pension to top up as well.

However, we were told that you are not allowed to use any of the £23,250 (no idea why?) towards the shortfall and that the LA will take all of any pensions/income (up to the amount they fund) and the resident just gets given around £25 a week spending money. Hence, depending on pension income, it could still fall on the family to fund the top up difference or else the person would have to move to a care home that only charges at the LA funding level.

I accept the need for houses to be sold for care and that seems reasonable, but this other element of taking 'all' pension income to fund the LA contribution just doesn't seem quite fair to me (just taking state pension element seems fairer as that would apply to all or most).