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
    • Pilsthedoeboy
    • By Pilsthedoeboy 5th Mar 18, 2:26 PM
    • 10Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Pilsthedoeboy
    care Home fees, can I retain the family bungalow
    • #1
    • 5th Mar 18, 2:26 PM
    care Home fees, can I retain the family bungalow 5th Mar 18 at 2:26 PM
    My Mum owns 50% of her Bungalow, the other half is owned by my son as trustees (following the death of my father a few years ago) and the trust allows my mum to live in the property while she can and wishes to. I used to live with my mum, moved in with her when I became a Widower 3 years ago, the set up helped both of us, I have a troublesome hip replacement (in receipt of PIP) so living in a bungalow with no stairs was a real help. However, I met a new partner a couple of years ago and moved out of Mums bungalow to share my new partners home, a house - we married 3 months ago. Unfortunately mum had a nasty fall at the start of 2018 and it looks like she will have to go into a care home. The question I have is as follows: my wife and I would very much like to take over residing in Mums bungalow, a lot of my things are still there and in place and this will help my failing hip replacement which at 58 Iím not keen to have revised just yet, the outcome of hip revision surgery might not be very good at all. I notice in the rules that a disabled relative can still live in the family home and it is thereby disregarded in any means test for care Home fees. Iíve also read somewhere that where the relative is not currently living in the property there has to be intent demonstrated for this to happen. Anyone who can give any guideance regarding this, it will be very welcome - thank you.
Page 2
    • Keep pedalling
    • By Keep pedalling 11th Mar 18, 2:28 PM
    • 5,098 Posts
    • 5,683 Thanks
    Keep pedalling
    No, I agree, but I think it should be the recipient's choice what to do with it, not be forced to sell because someone else owes care home fees. Their half should not be taken into consideration..

    If it WAS a vintage car, they would not be expected to sell it, why should they be expected to sell their share of the house?
    Originally posted by seven-day-weekend
    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.
    • seven-day-weekend
    • By seven-day-weekend 11th Mar 18, 2:39 PM
    • 30,710 Posts
    • 58,176 Thanks
    seven-day-weekend
    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.
    Originally posted by Keep pedalling
    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.
    • Keep pedalling
    • By Keep pedalling 11th Mar 18, 5:38 PM
    • 5,098 Posts
    • 5,683 Thanks
    Keep pedalling
    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.
    Originally posted by seven-day-weekend
    Yes that was a bit of an assumption on my behalf, but as the question was about avoiding care costs I think a reasonable one.
    • DairyQueen
    • By DairyQueen 12th Mar 18, 10:16 AM
    • 293 Posts
    • 459 Thanks
    DairyQueen
    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?
    Last edited by DairyQueen; 12-03-2018 at 10:17 AM. Reason: typo
    • teddysmum
    • By teddysmum 14th Mar 18, 10:05 PM
    • 9,044 Posts
    • 5,393 Thanks
    teddysmum
    Regarding the often mentioned situation, where people resent having to use all their assets to pay for the same care as others get free and the 'taxpayer' saying that they should not be expected to fund those who have assets :


    I think neither would mind supporting non-contributors who have genuinely been unable to contribute ,because illness prevented work or because of the circumstances of a bygone age (woman was badly paid or had to be the 'housewife' leaving work for the men), but the problem is those who shirked work for years, got away with feigned illness (back in the days when self certification got benefits) or lived the Life of Riley in the full knowledge that someone else would fund them later.


    These are the ones who cause the resentment and if these could be sorted out (only very basic care) the 'taxpayer' and self funding people would have to pay less. Alas, it probably can't be done.
    • humptydumptybits
    • By humptydumptybits 30th Mar 18, 8:28 PM
    • 554 Posts
    • 1,036 Thanks
    humptydumptybits
    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.
    • Keep pedalling
    • By Keep pedalling 30th Mar 18, 11:05 PM
    • 5,098 Posts
    • 5,683 Thanks
    Keep pedalling
    Regarding the often mentioned situation, where people resent having to use all their assets to pay for the same care as others get free and the 'taxpayer' saying that they should not be expected to fund those who have assets :


    I think neither would mind supporting non-contributors who have genuinely been unable to contribute ,because illness prevented work or because of the circumstances of a bygone age (woman was badly paid or had to be the 'housewife' leaving work for the men), but the problem is those who shirked work for years, got away with feigned illness (back in the days when self certification got benefits) or lived the Life of Riley in the full knowledge that someone else would fund them later.


    These are the ones who cause the resentment and if these could be sorted out (only very basic care) the 'taxpayer' and self funding people would have to pay less. Alas, it probably can't be done.
    Originally posted by teddysmum
    I think what really causes the resentment is loss of inheritance. believe me as the years go on getting funded care is going to get more difficult, and the actual quality of that care will decline.

    My mother should have been in care a year before she was, but her condition was not bad enough to get her past the funding panel. When she did get the funding after a hospitalisation we had the choice of one home. A rather old fashioned place with tiny bedrooms, and although the staff were great and she received good care, it would not the sort of place I would want to spend my final days in.

    Anyone who deliberately does away with their option of self funding really should think again. We certainly are not going to do that, we want quality care in a nice environment, and I canít see anyone else but us paying for that in 10-25 years time.
    • Larac
    • By Larac 31st Mar 18, 6:09 PM
    • 823 Posts
    • 512 Thanks
    Larac
    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.
    Originally posted by humptydumptybits
    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.
    Last edited by Larac; 31-03-2018 at 6:16 PM.
    • humptydumptybits
    • By humptydumptybits 3rd Apr 18, 12:27 PM
    • 554 Posts
    • 1,036 Thanks
    humptydumptybits
    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.
    Originally posted by Larac
    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
    • Shedman
    • By Shedman 3rd Apr 18, 4:31 PM
    • 154 Posts
    • 83 Thanks
    Shedman
    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
    Originally posted by humptydumptybits
    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).
    Last edited by Shedman; 03-04-2018 at 4:36 PM.
    • humptydumptybits
    • By humptydumptybits 3rd Apr 18, 7:21 PM
    • 554 Posts
    • 1,036 Thanks
    humptydumptybits
    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).
    Originally posted by Shedman
    Oh well we will just have to hope her pension and income from her £600k investments lasts long enough, obviously the £600k is reducing but the interest means we aren't using much of the capital. We were told that they would take the state pension but not the private one, don't know if councils have different policies? As it is she would be well over 100 by the time that is an issue so who knows where we all be by then?

    As I said she is in a beautiful home with lovely grounds and very good staff so it is worth it. Even if her husband had sorted it so I inherited half the house the money would still have been spent on her, I think very little of someone who thinks their inheritance is more important than the well being of the elderly person who might leave them the inheritance.
    Last edited by humptydumptybits; 03-04-2018 at 7:24 PM.
    • DairyQueen
    • By DairyQueen 3rd Apr 18, 7:49 PM
    • 293 Posts
    • 459 Thanks
    DairyQueen
    I was wondering whether pensions (state/private) are offset in the event that a self-funder's capital falls below the threshold so thank you for clarifying that.
    • badmemory
    • By badmemory 4th Apr 18, 7:04 PM
    • 1,714 Posts
    • 2,316 Thanks
    badmemory
    If self funding then attendance allowance should be available (at the higher rate) this helps to eke out the personal funds. This is no longer available once the LA takes over. If the home takes LA funded people it should be the care homes policy that the carers do not know who is who. Something to watch out for if a loved one may run out of personal funds.
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

529Posts Today

5,990Users online

Martin's Twitter