Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MightyWhitey
    • By MightyWhitey 9th Sep 19, 7:41 PM
    • 15Posts
    • 10Thanks
    MightyWhitey
    Over 60 resident relative. How to avoid losing the family home to care home fees
    • #1
    • 9th Sep 19, 7:41 PM
    Over 60 resident relative. How to avoid losing the family home to care home fees 9th Sep 19 at 7:41 PM
    My Mother is 85, owns her own home and wants to avoid selling the family home to fund her care, to the local council..

    Since I am over 60, I am looking to move into her home as my main residence, ahead of any move by her into care to comply with rules I have seen, stating that the property cannot be taken with a dependent in it ( subject to some caveats in the rules ).

    So i rang the council assessment team, and asked how long before she goes into care can i be considered to be a resident for exclusion purpose. They said "it depends", "it"s complex", "they cannot tell me the guidelines on that, that they work to".

    Does anybody know?
Page 6
    • Mojisola
    • By Mojisola 30th Sep 19, 9:08 AM
    • 31,571 Posts
    • 80,928 Thanks
    Mojisola

    It is a complete fallacy to suggest that publicly funded care is worse than privately funded care.
    Originally posted by woolly_wombat
    In your experience - in our area there is one home that accepts council-funded residents. All the other homes require third party top-ups to the council rate.

    Having NHS funding could be a different matter as I understand that is higher than the council rate.

    Like you, we were put off by a couple of the more expensive homes - they looked like 5-star hotels but the care didn't seem to be there.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 30th Sep 19, 10:47 AM
    • 25,439 Posts
    • 13,645 Thanks
    lisyloo
    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.
    Last edited by lisyloo; 30-09-2019 at 10:49 AM.
    • JoeEngland
    • By JoeEngland 30th Sep 19, 4:49 PM
    • 355 Posts
    • 780 Thanks
    JoeEngland
    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.
    Originally posted by MightyWhitey
    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?
    • elsien
    • By elsien 30th Sep 19, 4:55 PM
    • 19,910 Posts
    • 50,593 Thanks
    elsien
    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.
    Originally posted by Bogof_Babe
    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.
    • DairyQueen
    • By DairyQueen 30th Sep 19, 8:35 PM
    • 935 Posts
    • 1,701 Thanks
    DairyQueen
    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.
    • pensionpawn
    • By pensionpawn 1st Oct 19, 10:56 PM
    • 188 Posts
    • 156 Thanks
    pensionpawn
    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.
    Originally posted by DairyQueen
    ...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 pi$$ed it all up against the wall in their younger days?
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 1st Oct 19, 11:14 PM
    • 4,559 Posts
    • 2,855 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    ...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?
    Originally posted by pensionpawn
    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.

    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 pi$$ed it all up against the wall in their younger days?
    Originally posted by pensionpawn
    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.
    Personal Responsibility - Sad but True

    Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone
    • fred246
    • By fred246 2nd Oct 19, 6:02 AM
    • 1,824 Posts
    • 1,137 Thanks
    fred246
    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.
    • pensionpawn
    • By pensionpawn 2nd Oct 19, 6:24 AM
    • 188 Posts
    • 156 Thanks
    pensionpawn
    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.
    Originally posted by cloud_dog
    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.
    • JoeEngland
    • By JoeEngland 2nd Oct 19, 6:51 AM
    • 355 Posts
    • 780 Thanks
    JoeEngland
    ...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 pi$$ed it all up against the wall in their younger days?
    Originally posted by pensionpawn
    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?
    Last edited by JoeEngland; 02-10-2019 at 6:54 AM.
    • cloud_dog
    • By cloud_dog 2nd Oct 19, 8:02 AM
    • 4,559 Posts
    • 2,855 Thanks
    cloud_dog
    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.
    Originally posted by pensionpawn
    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.

    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 bone
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 2nd Oct 19, 8:30 AM
    • 6,808 Posts
    • 11,005 Thanks
    Malthusian
    People who save all their lives in order to give their offspring the best possible start in life should not be penalised.
    Originally posted by pensionpawn
    They aren't. If you spend all your money on private school fees or tutoring, and then require care, the LA will pay for you to go into Overmydeadbody Grove (unless you get lucky and the LA pays for a nice one). The same applies if you pay for your children to go to university or give them money for a house deposit before you anticipated any need for care - that's not deliberate deprivation.

    The LA will not bash your children over the head until they've forgotten everything they learned in their posh school, in order to penalise you spending your money on giving them the best possible start in life instead of saving it for care.

    Inheritances are most commonly inherited in late-middle-age (85-year-old stiff leaves money to 55-year-old child) and have absolutely nothing to do with "the best possible start in life". Unless you are unlucky enough to be orphaned prematurely, and most people would prefer having a mum or dad over an inheritance.
    Last edited by Malthusian; 02-10-2019 at 8:33 AM.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 2nd Oct 19, 10:55 AM
    • 25,439 Posts
    • 13,645 Thanks
    lisyloo
    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?
    Originally posted by fred246
    They will be at the mercy of whatever is available.
    It may not be near family and they may even be split up from a spouse (in different homes). It’s not just about the standard it’s also about choice of location which is very important to get any visitors.
    But that’s the same with all “benefits” isn’t it.
    It’s a safety net.

    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.
    It’s extremely simplistic to tell people to “just move” especially in their 80s and 90s.
    They might have a spouse, children, grandchildren.
    They may have dimensia and be unable to make decisions anyway and may well have personalised their property with a wet room, stairlift etc.

    LA care is definitely a postcode lottery.
    Residential Homes in London and the SE definitely have higher prices.

    I’m not sure if you are suggesting planning your entire location In life around the LA provision. That doesn’t work for many reasons, firstly because you don’t know what it’s going to be like next year let alone in 60 years time but clearly people move for work opportunities and may not have a choice.
    Those born in the 20s and 30s who are now in homes had very little opportunity to travel during their earlier lives in fact and to be honest never expected to live this long anyway so they never planned for it. My in laws left school at 14 and they weren’t educated about financial planning in the 1930’s.

    Moving to Scotland where it’s free is an option but people don’t seem to have done that en masse.
    When I ask why I don’t really get answers, but I would guess it has something to do with wanting to be near children, grandchildren and grandchildren especially if you need their assistance.

    But your right that people living in poorer areas have much lower fees and possibly better choices,
    I’ve never heard of someone in that age bracket moving. They usually want to be near family as the are quite needy.
    Nursing homes do not (surprisingly) take care of dental, optical, hearing, clothing etc. And don’t manage finances, So there is a lot of personal stuff that needs to be done over and above the day-to-day care by families.

    Your relative was lucky.
    The nicer homes in the south only take LA residents with a top up usually.
    Last edited by lisyloo; 02-10-2019 at 11:15 AM.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 2nd Oct 19, 11:12 AM
    • 25,439 Posts
    • 13,645 Thanks
    lisyloo
    ...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 pi$$ed it all up against the wall in their younger days?
    Originally posted by pensionpawn
    My MIL is nearly 92. I can assure you her children will not be getting the best possible start in life from an inheritance.

    At the moment we’d rather her money was spent on providing the very best possible care under the circumstances.

    Let me turn this around on you and say that elderly people should have use of their own money For their own best interests rather than grasping offspring trying to take it off them prematurely whilst they are still alive !!
    Its not what the majority voted for in our democracy.

    If you want free care vote labour but you’re in a minority.
    Last edited by lisyloo; 02-10-2019 at 11:17 AM.
    • Skibunny40
    • By Skibunny40 3rd Oct 19, 7:35 AM
    • 252 Posts
    • 288 Thanks
    Skibunny40
    With regard to the subject of free personal care, in my experience the problem is that the criteria to qualify for it just becomes incredibly high - because the council still has to fund the "free" care and they don't have the funds, so try to avoid offering it however they can. This then means that the people who do meet the criteria have extremely high physical needs which is very challenging for the carers. However, private care work is slightly better paid and can be less challenging so many of the council carers choose to work for private companies instead. So it's a vicious circle that even if the person is bad enough to qualify for the free care, there's little available because of staffing issues.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 3rd Oct 19, 9:20 AM
    • 25,439 Posts
    • 13,645 Thanks
    lisyloo
    That is the situation at the moment with LA funded care.
    If you have your own means you can enter a suitable establishment at a time of your choosing.
    If you are LA funded you will have to wait until you and your family are on their knees quite literally.
    My MIL went into a nursing home after a fall and after my disabled FIL in his late 80s broke down emotionally in front of the assessment team.
    He did have family help out of hours but he was the one there 24/7 dealing with her being in the vile stage of dimensia.
    Many people have a fall which is dangerous in itself. In general very elderly people do not recovery fully and there’s a small chance it could be fatal.

    If anyone thinks they can just call up and go in then they are mistaken.
    It’s a postcode lottery and resources are constrained and familes are expected to help even spouses in their 80s and 90s.
    • OldBeanz
    • By OldBeanz 3rd Oct 19, 9:40 AM
    • 854 Posts
    • 666 Thanks
    OldBeanz
    ...
    Many people have a fall which is dangerous in itself. In general very elderly people do not recovery fully and there’s a small chance it could be fatal.

    ...
    Originally posted by lisyloo
    "Falling is the second leading cause of accidental death worldwide and is a major cause of personal injury, especially for the elderly. Falls in older adults are an important class of preventable injuries."
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

163Posts Today

1,606Users online

Martin's Twitter