Over 60 resident relative. How to avoid losing the family home to care home fees
Comments
-
It’s a postcode lottery but we saw some awful places in Bath & NE Somerset and south glos (which are not poverty stricken I.e. MP Jacob Rees Mogg).
By awful we mean dressings hanging off, people being cold for want of a blanket, sat in urine and faeces. Accidents are inevitable of course but people shouldn’t be sat in it for hours.
A lot of places we saw wanted top ups for council residents.
It was slim pickings for those with local authority funding.
We got decent places because we fought hard and twice went to “panel”, but those people without any advocates to fight for them will just end up in the awful places.
It wasn’t that the admin staff didn’t care, they were cheering for us when we won but they have to do their jobs and their job dictates they offer the cheaper places first, and if no one complains then they’ll end up in those places.0 -
MightyWhitey wrote: »I received a reply from a senior member of the county council financial assessments team stating:
"the information you have gathered so far and your circumstances, leads to the conclusion that the property may be disregarded".
In a clarifying email, it was stated that the circumstances described would need to be "evidenced".
I've got some comfort from this, though everything depends on what happens at the time, and if circumstances change.
Perhaps the key takeaway from this exercise is to ensure folks put their questions in writing to council and get the same in reply, which they appear to do if you get through to the financial assessments team members. Initially I appear to have spoke with an unqualified council person which set my concerns in motion.
Hopefully this thread helps others in similar circumstances.
Did you tell the council that your mum's aim is to avoid selling the house to pay for care? Presumably that's because she wants to leave the family an inheritance?0 -
Bogof_Babe wrote: »Actually with mum it boiled down to finding somewhere that had a vacant place, as many of them were full or had closed down. Sadly several more have closed down since she passed away in 2011 (this is the North West, specifically Merseyside) so I imagine there is a looming if not present crisis these days.
As for inspection and standards, don't the CQC still operate? Once when we were visiting mum there was a surprise inspection, including asking the visitors as well as the residents about the standard of care they were receiving.
CQC seems very much to depend on the inspector and how much they want to dig. I reported my grandmother's care home and an inspection then found them inadequate on all the standards inspected. The follow up a few months later gave them satisfactory - the actual standard of care hadn't changed and was still appalling but they'd got the paperwork sorted and the inspector accepted it. I just wish more relatives would report their concerns.All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.
Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.0 -
My MIL's (extremely good) care home now only offers 2 places to those who are LA-funded. Cash-strapped LAs can't afford to pay the going rate and the home has been forced to either increase fees to self-funders (like MIL) to make-up the difference, or cut the LA-funded numbers. Unsurprisingly, the home would be less attractive to self-funders if the fees increased beyond those charged by the (all self-funded) competition.
I believe that those who can pay should meet the full cost. I am also in favour of public money being used to care for those who genuinely can't pay. I take exception to greedy people like the OP seeking to scam the system at the expense of younger workers (taxpayers) and/or self-funders.
Why should our tax receipts be used to protect OP's inheritance? And why should the proceeds from my MIL's home do likewise?
If OP's scam comes-off I sincerely hope that OP's mother lives to 100 but flatly refuses to enter a state-funded care home, regardless of the assessed need. OP will then be able to provide the very best care for her at home for at least a decade. Hopefully, OP will be in her late 70s before the good lady passes. A decade, or more, of caring for a frail and/or disabled adult is very challenging. That inheritance could end-up being well-earned.
My (very disabled) 80-year-old mother is still cared for at home by my 82-year-old dad, with daily support from me. Without him, she would have been in a home for over twenty years by now. I think that dad and I have saved the taxpayer in the order of a million so it sticks in my craw that, on receipt of his state pension (accrued over decades of working), he was immediately denied the carer allowance.
And the OP thinks that she is somehow 'entitled' to receive state support for her mother in order to use her mother's assets for her own benefit.
Every pound she scams is a pound taken from those in real need.
Outrageous.0 -
DairyQueen wrote: »My MIL's (extremely good) care home now only offers 2 places to those who are LA-funded. Cash-strapped LAs can't afford to pay the going rate and the home has been forced to either increase fees to self-funders (like MIL) to make-up the difference, or cut the LA-funded numbers. Unsurprisingly, the home would be less attractive to self-funders if the fees increased beyond those charged by the (all self-funded) competition.
I believe that those who can pay should meet the full cost. I am also in favour of public money being used to care for those who genuinely can't pay. I take exception to greedy people like the OP seeking to scam the system at the expense of younger workers (taxpayers) and/or self-funders.
Why should our tax receipts be used to protect OP's inheritance? And why should the proceeds from my MIL's home do likewise?
If OP's scam comes-off I sincerely hope that OP's mother lives to 100 but flatly refuses to enter a state-funded care home, regardless of the assessed need. OP will then be able to provide the very best care for her at home for at least a decade. Hopefully, OP will be in her late 70s before the good lady passes. A decade, or more, of caring for a frail and/or disabled adult is very challenging. That inheritance could end-up being well-earned.
My (very disabled) 80-year-old mother is still cared for at home by my 82-year-old dad, with daily support from me. Without him, she would have been in a home for over twenty years by now. I think that dad and I have saved the taxpayer in the order of a million so it sticks in my craw that, on receipt of his state pension (accrued over decades of working), he was immediately denied the carer allowance.
And the OP thinks that she is somehow 'entitled' to receive state support for her mother in order to use her mother's assets for her own benefit.
Every pound she scams is a pound taken from those in real need.
Outrageous.
...and why should the OP have to use all their savings and sell their property to pay for their care when those who sit on their !!!!! all their lifetime have a free hand out from the taxpayer? If you can't see it the issue here is fairness. People who save all their lives in order to give their offspring the best possible start in life should not be penalised. There needs to be a system that provides for all and is paid for by all. What next, redistribute private pensions to pay for those who !!!!!! it all up against the wall in their younger days?0 -
You've misunderstood the OPs post, they are not talking about using their savings they are talking about holding on to their inheritance. Big difference.pensionpawn wrote: »...and why should the OP have to use all their savings and sell their property to pay for their care when those who sit on their !!!!! all their lifetime have a free hand out from the taxpayer?
I don't think, even with a vivid imagination you could possibly class the OP as needing a start (having owned their own property) or be at the starting age of 60.pensionpawn wrote: »If you can't see it the issue here is fairness. People who save all their lives in order to give their offspring the best possible start in life should not be penalised. There needs to be a system that provides for all and is paid for by all. What next, redistribute private pensions to pay for those who !!!!!! it all up against the wall in their younger days?
It is what it is, lets not try to disguise it as something different.Personal Responsibility - Sad but True
Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone0 -
There are areas of the country where 90% of the population have no idea of the concept of savings. Every penny of income is spent every month. They couldn't possibly contribute. So do they all go into over my dead body homes? My relative got the same care as those that were local authority funded but it was in an area where a lot were local authority funded. Maybe that is the key. Don't live in an affluent area if you don't have savings.0
-
You've misunderstood the OPs post, they are not talking about using their savings they are talking about holding on to their inheritance. Big difference.
I don't think, even with a vivid imagination you could possibly class the OP as needing a start (having owned their own property) or be at the starting age of 60.
It is what it is, lets not try to disguise it as something different.
I agree I'm generalising somewhat wrt the OP however the underlying concern of making a claim against the estate of the person requiring care is the wider issue addressed.0 -
pensionpawn wrote: »...and why should the OP have to use all their savings and sell their property to pay for their care when those who sit on their !!!!! all their lifetime have a free hand out from the taxpayer? If you can't see it the issue here is fairness. People who save all their lives in order to give their offspring the best possible start in life should not be penalised. There needs to be a system that provides for all and is paid for by all. What next, redistribute private pensions to pay for those who !!!!!! it all up against the wall in their younger days?
I prefer a system whereby those with the financial means take personal responsibility for themselves and pay for their own care, and the state covers those who aren't so lucky financially.
Simply put, if someone doesn't care enough about themselves to use their own means to ensure the best care available then why should the taxpayer care about them just so their kids can have an inheritance?0 -
As a person, a child of an ailing parent why wouldn't you want your parent to be able to have the best care possible? People have got to stop thinking that it is their inalienable right to retain their inheritance.pensionpawn wrote: »I agree I'm generalising somewhat wrt the OP however the underlying concern of making a claim against the estate of the person requiring care is the wider issue addressed.
If you believe we are not paying enough local taxes to support Local Councils from being able to deliver better quality care homes then why not argue that?Personal Responsibility - Sad but True
Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone0
Categories
- All Categories
- 343K Banking & Borrowing
- 250K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards