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
    • Norma Norman
    • By Norma Norman 6th Aug 18, 2:24 PM
    • 8Posts
    • 3Thanks
    Norma Norman
    Care Home fees.
    • #1
    • 6th Aug 18, 2:24 PM
    Care Home fees. 6th Aug 18 at 2:24 PM
    My Mother in Law suffers from dementia and lives in sheltered accommodation. She pays all her rent, care costs, etc.

    My wife is getting upset because the carers are not very good carers. They don't launder properly, don't clean the flat properly etc. We feel that it would be better if my wife did certain things like the above and say helped her have a shower things would be better. We would still leave a lot of things like taking her to and from meals in the resident lounge/dining room to the carers.
    Now, if my wife did this she would have to give up her part time job and that is not economically viable. So the thought is that if she took £500 per month to compensate for her loss of salary AND payment for providing care would this cause problems in the future when the time comes for her to enter a care home. That is, would the Local Authority try to claw back the payments my wife would receive?
Page 3
    • Rambosmum
    • By Rambosmum 8th Aug 18, 10:08 AM
    • 1,791 Posts
    • 2,299 Thanks
    Rambosmum
    How is care currently organised? If there a care coordinator or social worker?


    it is possible for your wife to take on some of the caring role as a paid PA - she would be an employee and your mother an employer (or your sister in law with POA). Your wife could not be both employee and employer.


    If there was a care coordinator or social worker you could ask them to draw this up formally - it's something we do fairly regularly. We accept and understand that family cannot always provide free care for family members depending on other commitments they have. How much they will allow your mother to pay will be dependent on their PA rates (not the care agency rate).


    To prevent accusations of fraud you would be best drawing this up formally - your wife having a contract which sets out her working hours, her pay and her job and make sure that your MIL or SIL are appropriately insured and paying relevant tax, NI and pensions contributions as required - there are specialist companies which charge a minimal fee to support with this, they also do pay role too so takes some of the stress away.


    Whether this is permissible in the scheme your MIL lives in is dependent on how it is set up.


    There is absolutely nothing to stop your MIL or her POA from setting up a private care arrangement.
    • Norma Norman
    • By Norma Norman 8th Aug 18, 10:57 AM
    • 8 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    Norma Norman
    Thanks Rambosmum.

    It's nice to see somebody speaking with authority, instead of having to put up with what verges on trolling from some forum members. MIL does have a social worker, we will talk to her. I just wanted a bit of background info before speaking to her.
    • Rambosmum
    • By Rambosmum 8th Aug 18, 11:02 AM
    • 1,791 Posts
    • 2,299 Thanks
    Rambosmum
    Whether the support can be changed from carers to a PA (i.e. reduce the amount paid for the carers support and transfer this to your wife) will be dependent on the particular scheme your MIL is in - the social worker should know this.


    But even if this can't be changed there is nothing stopping your MIL or her POA from buying additional support on top of that already provided as a private arrangement if this is in MIL 'Best Interest' (if she is unable to make the decision herself and POA is for health and welfare as well as finances).
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 8th Aug 18, 1:26 PM
    • 3,707 Posts
    • 3,519 Thanks
    Comms69
    Thanks Rambosmum.

    It's nice to see somebody speaking with authority, instead of having to put up with what verges on trolling from some forum members. MIL does have a social worker, we will talk to her. I just wanted a bit of background info before speaking to her.
    Originally posted by Norma Norman
    Trolling? Oh please.


    It's a public forum.


    Want someone who just agrees with you, go and pay them for it.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 8th Aug 18, 1:29 PM
    • 3,707 Posts
    • 3,519 Thanks
    Comms69
    Sorry no, itís not Ďnice workí. Iím sure the daughter would prefer her mum was well and didnít need any care.
    Originally posted by Red-Squirrel
    Im sure she would, but unless she's discovered the secret to eternal youth, cure for dementia; or a time machine - this is the situation.






    Charging £12.50 an hour to care for your own mum - well it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
    • Rambosmum
    • By Rambosmum 8th Aug 18, 2:12 PM
    • 1,791 Posts
    • 2,299 Thanks
    Rambosmum
    Im sure she would, but unless she's discovered the secret to eternal youth, cure for dementia; or a time machine - this is the situation.






    Charging £12.50 an hour to care for your own mum - well it just leaves a bad taste in the mouth.
    Originally posted by Comms69


    It might, but due to rising housing costs, living longer and people having to work longer, unfortunately not everyone can afford to give up work to care for an elderly relative, as much as they want to.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 8th Aug 18, 2:38 PM
    • 22,277 Posts
    • 10,908 Thanks
    lisyloo
    I can see it from both sides.


    I can see it from the point of view that parents brought you up in their time at their cost and that should be returned. Not because it's a fair swap but because it should be unconditional.

    However the practical side is that women often have to work these days and not everyone is retired when their parents need care (my MIL is 90 and DH is 52 ith state pension age of 67, so 15 years off according to the state).

    Women are expected to work until 67 or more and pension ages have been equalised with men. If the state wants women to work then it can't expect them to be available for free care at the same time.
    If the elderly person has money and the younger person needs it, then from a practical point of view it makes perfect sense. In many cases it will be coming off their inheritance !
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 8th Aug 18, 2:41 PM
    • 3,707 Posts
    • 3,519 Thanks
    Comms69
    It might, but due to rising housing costs, living longer and people having to work longer, unfortunately not everyone can afford to give up work to care for an elderly relative, as much as they want to.
    Originally posted by Rambosmum
    I agree with you, but if the mother has the money spare, use it to pay for a private carer; at a lower cost than that.


    £6000 a year can pay for a lot of care.


    It's not even value for money for the mum
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 8th Aug 18, 2:43 PM
    • 3,707 Posts
    • 3,519 Thanks
    Comms69
    I can see it from both sides.


    I can see it from the point of view that parents brought you up in their time at their cost and that should be returned. Not because it's a fair swap but because it should be unconditional.

    However the practical side is that women often have to work these days and not everyone is retired when their parents need care (my MIL is 90 and DH is 52 ith state pension age of 67, so 15 years off according to the state).

    Women are expected to work until 67 or more and pension ages have been equalised with men. If the state wants women to work then it can't expect them to be available for free care at the same time.
    If the elderly person has money and the younger person needs it, then from a practical point of view it makes perfect sense. In many cases it will be coming off their inheritance !
    Originally posted by lisyloo
    What's the state got to do with it?


    The state does not expect it, the state already provides a service.


    No-one is forcing anyone to work
    • GlasweJen
    • By GlasweJen 9th Aug 18, 9:26 AM
    • 6,598 Posts
    • 11,907 Thanks
    GlasweJen
    How is care currently organised? If there a care coordinator or social worker?


    it is possible for your wife to take on some of the caring role as a paid PA - she would be an employee and your mother an employer (or your sister in law with POA). Your wife could not be both employee and employer.


    If there was a care coordinator or social worker you could ask them to draw this up formally - it's something we do fairly regularly. We accept and understand that family cannot always provide free care for family members depending on other commitments they have. How much they will allow your mother to pay will be dependent on their PA rates (not the care agency rate).


    To prevent accusations of fraud you would be best drawing this up formally - your wife having a contract which sets out her working hours, her pay and her job and make sure that your MIL or SIL are appropriately insured and paying relevant tax, NI and pensions contributions as required - there are specialist companies which charge a minimal fee to support with this, they also do pay role too so takes some of the stress away.


    Whether this is permissible in the scheme your MIL lives in is dependent on how it is set up.


    There is absolutely nothing to stop your MIL or her POA from setting up a private care arrangement.
    Originally posted by Rambosmum
    The problem is the OP is the POA and wants to pay herself way above market rates without any of the appropriate experience or training. If she was a qualified nurse coming out of nursing to provide palliative care then fair dos but she wants £12.50 an hour to do a bit of cleaning - it's entirely unrealistic! I wonder what her sister has to say about it. As the other POA she'd have to sign off on this scheme.
    Bounts, Quidco, Shop and Scan, Receipt Hog, Costco Cashback, Debit card cashback

    NOT BUYING IT
    (unless it's on offer and can get my loyalty points)
    • Rambosmum
    • By Rambosmum 10th Aug 18, 3:09 PM
    • 1,791 Posts
    • 2,299 Thanks
    Rambosmum
    I agree with you, but if the mother has the money spare, use it to pay for a private carer; at a lower cost than that.


    £6000 a year can pay for a lot of care.


    It's not even value for money for the mum
    Originally posted by Comms69


    I do not know where you live but where I work the cheapest care agency is £14.40 per hour and the rate for a PA is £11.95, and it's a cheap area.


    There is also the risk with a PA of covering sickness and holiday, which family would most likely have to organise. If they used a care agency, due to the MIL being in sheltered accommodation there may be a restriction on having a secondary agency present and so a PA is the only way to go.
    • Rambosmum
    • By Rambosmum 10th Aug 18, 3:10 PM
    • 1,791 Posts
    • 2,299 Thanks
    Rambosmum
    The problem is the OP is the POA and wants to pay herself way above market rates without any of the appropriate experience or training. If she was a qualified nurse coming out of nursing to provide palliative care then fair dos but she wants £12.50 an hour to do a bit of cleaning - it's entirely unrealistic! I wonder what her sister has to say about it. As the other POA she'd have to sign off on this scheme.
    Originally posted by GlasweJen

    Jointly POA - it is perfectly legitimate for the other POA to organise the management, payment and payroll of the other POA.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 10th Aug 18, 3:21 PM
    • 22,277 Posts
    • 10,908 Thanks
    lisyloo
    What's the state got to do with it?
    I'd say quite a lot.

    The state does not provide women with a state pension until 67.
    When I started working this was 60.
    For many below median wage this will mean they cannot retire until state pension age.


    The state does not expect it
    It might not apply in this particular case, but in many cases the state does expect family to do caring duties and other tasks.
    Even if your loved one is in a nursing home it's rare that they will take them to an optician or for a hearing test or to get false teeth or to go clothes shopping.
    Family are expected to do these things.
    You maybe correct in saying the state provided the bare minimum to keep people alive and in a hygienic state.


    No-one is forcing anyone to work
    Most people need to earn a living.
    The age when people retire has done up especially for women.
    I'm not saying that's wrong in fact I agree with it.
    Just pointing out that they can't be expecting to work full time AND care as well.


    If you want to claim benefits e.g. JSA, then I think you'd find the "state" would be expecting you to work and you'll face sanctions if you don't.
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 10th Aug 18, 3:25 PM
    • 3,707 Posts
    • 3,519 Thanks
    Comms69
    I'd say quite a lot.

    The state does not provide women with a state pension until 67.
    When I started working this was 60.
    For many below median wage this will mean they cannot retire until state pension age. - And? That's their own fault



    It might not apply in this particular case, but in many cases the state does expect family to do caring duties and other tasks.
    Even if your loved one is in a nursing home it's rare that they will take them to an optician or for a hearing test or to get false teeth or to go clothes shopping. - indeed, but again that's not the state's responsibility.
    Family are expected to do these things.
    You maybe correct in saying the state provided the bare minimum to keep people alive and in a hygienic state. - indeed.



    Most people need to earn a living. - indeed, but no-one forces them to
    The age when people retire has done up especially for women.- yes, equality tends to do that
    I'm not saying that's wrong in fact I agree with it.
    Just pointing out that they can't be expecting to work full time AND care as well. - no they cant be, but that's down to individual choices, not the state


    If you want to claim benefits e.g. JSA, then I think you'd find the "state" would be expecting you to work and you'll face sanctions if you don't.
    Originally posted by lisyloo

    Ah but that's not the same thing, no-one forces you to claim benefits. You choose to, and there are terms and conditions to receive them.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 10th Aug 18, 4:07 PM
    • 22,277 Posts
    • 10,908 Thanks
    lisyloo
    And? That's their own fault



    Hm....I though I was in danger of being unsympathetic but you take the biscuit :-)
    What about a woman that's been abandoned? Is that her fault?
    What if she left scholl at 14 in 1941 and didn't have a great education? Sill her fault?
    What if she was raped?


    I could go on but I don't think most sensible people think it's someone's fault if they need to earn a living.








    - indeed, but again that's not the state's responsibility.



    ok, but would you agree that the state service - where people might be unable to see, hear, bute or chew is the absolute minmum to keep people alive and not something to be proud of?


    indeed, but no-one forces them to



    Well we don't hold a gun up to people's head if you are scoring points, but clearly people need to work to live.


    but that's down to individual choices, not the state



    If you want to score point, then yes you are right.
    For example mu SIL chooses to keep a roof over her and her son's head rathrt than give up her job to care for her mother (and the lose the house when she doesn't pay the mortgage). Not sure how she's do the caring once the house has been repossesed.
    I think most sensible people understand that it's not a realistic choice to lose the roof over your head and become intentionally homeless, even if you want to score points on saying it's a choice.

    Ah but that's not the same thing, no-one forces you to claim benefits.



    If we are scoring points, there are some innate instincts we have e.g. survival that FORCE us to try to eat.


    Most sensible people will know that some choices are not realistic and not in normal parlance therefore considered choices e.g. making yourself intentioanlly homeles if you have children (unless you are for some reason trying to score points).
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 10th Aug 18, 4:28 PM
    • 3,707 Posts
    • 3,519 Thanks
    Comms69


    Hm....I though I was in danger of being unsympathetic but you take the biscuit :-) - haha, it's not that i'm unsympathetic, I just don't think that the state is responsible for fixing everyone's mistakes.
    What about a woman that's been abandoned? - you mean to raise children? No I think child benefit etc is perfectly reasonable; it's a state investment into a childs potential. Is that her fault? - maybe? Depends on what actually happened.
    What if she left scholl at 14 in 1941 and didn't have a great education? - if we're going to be anecdotal, my grandfather went to work aged 8 on the railway in soviet Russia so his sister could go to school. He was a very successful physics professor at the Top university in Moscow, and wrote a number of books... Sill her fault? - again it depends on the circumstances.
    What if she was raped? - in what context? Does that mean she is unable to have a very decent life?


    I could go on but I don't think most sensible people think it's someone's fault if they need to earn a living. - Im really sorry I don't understand?











    ok, but would you agree that the state service - where people might be unable to see, hear, bute or chew is the absolute minmum to keep people alive and not something to be proud of? - I think you're being quite specific, so i'll broaden it. I think the fact the state provides a service; typically based upon individual needs is very good. Where do we draw the line of responsibility though? So many conditions are preventable, granted as we get older it's less so. But at what stage would you draw the line?





    Well we don't hold a gun up to people's head if you are scoring points, but clearly people need to work to live. - yes that's my point. That's not the state forcing anyone to work. That's ones own need for self preservation.





    If you want to score point, then yes you are right. - im not trying to score points; to be frank it's quite rude of you to say that. I have a different opinion to yours. Im not belittling yours as 'point scoring', I'd really appreciate it if you paid be the same courtesy.
    For example mu SIL chooses to keep a roof over her and her son's head rathrt than give up her job to care for her mother (and the lose the house when she doesn't pay the mortgage). Not sure how she's do the caring once the house has been repossesed. - indeed. But is that anyone's fault? Or is that life?
    I think most sensible people understand that it's not a realistic choice to lose the roof over your head and become intentionally homeless, even if you want to score points on saying it's a choice. - it is a choice. For example she could choose to move the mum into her own home? She could choose a different job? She could choose (and yes it's a legitimate choice) to prioritise the needs of her child over her mothers. It's not a nice choice, and I wouldn't like to make it. But I still don't see how the state is at fault in any way?




    If we are scoring points, there are some innate instincts we have e.g. survival that FORCE us to try to eat. - indeed. But that's not the debate (infact that's my point entirely). If you want to be paid by the state to search for work, you must search for work. If you have been lucky or successful and have money in the bank, you don't.


    Most sensible people will know that some choices are not realistic and not in normal parlance therefore considered choices e.g. making yourself intentioanlly homeles if you have children (unless you are for some reason trying to score points).
    Originally posted by lisyloo
    I resent your use of the word sensible, to suggest that my views are in essence anything but.


    It's not my fault, nor the state's fault, if someone's life, isn't how they want it to be.


    It's just life.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 10th Aug 18, 5:03 PM
    • 22,277 Posts
    • 10,908 Thanks
    lisyloo
    I'd really appreciate it if you paid be the same courtesy.



    Sure, maybe I got you all wrong, for which I apologise.


    But at what stage would you draw the line?



    I would expect people to pay for their own care (this is not in my interest).
    My MIL had care paid for by taxpaters and her home was disregarded.
    I think a bill should have been put against the home.
    But I wouldn't say it's her fault that she's llived til 90 with dimensia. She's never smoked or drank etc.


    For example she could choose to move the mum into her own home?

    Not physically possible in this case.
    MIL could not use a stair lift because she cannot bend her knees back (arthritis for 50 years - which I would not say is her fault).
    House is literally too small.



    She could choose a different job?

    Only within the limits of her qualifications/abillity/location/age.
    I don't think there are better options out there for her at 58 (and yes age does come into it).

    None of us (ncluding the staff) think it's realistic to look after someone 24/7 when they are very physically and emotionally demanding.
    The staff work hard but are emotionally detached.
    My MIL can be quite vile e.g. accusatory and it's quite difficult to just let that go over your head if your emotionally attached (apart from the fact that the finance, physical space doesn't work).


    Im grateful for your suggestions, but do you not think if there was a simply answer like just changing job or getting a stair lift that it would be done if it was that easy?


    But I still don't see how the state is at fault in any way?


    Actually I (and we as a family) are very grateful for the free care at home, hospital and nursing care we've received. I wasn't saying the state is at fault at all. In fact I believe people should pay more personally and be less tax payer funded (that to my personal detriment with loss of inheritance so no vested interest).




    My point was that if state pension age goes up for women (quite rightly IMO) we (the state and society as a whole) can't expect them to be 24/7 carers also which they would have been in the past at a time when women didn't commonly work.


    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 10th Aug 18, 5:15 PM
    • 3,707 Posts
    • 3,519 Thanks
    Comms69


    Sure, maybe I got you all wrong, for which I apologise.

    Appreciate that, thank you



    I would expect people to pay for their own care (this is not in my interest).
    My MIL had care paid for by taxpaters and her home was disregarded.
    I think a bill should have been put against the home.
    But I wouldn't say it's her fault that she's llived til 90 with dimensia. She's never smoked or drank etc. - no ofcourse not, but it's not mine, or yours or anyone else's. perhaps 'fault' is the wrong word for this context, as it has negative connotations. I cant think of a better one though?





    Not physically possible in this case. - sure, and I'm just throwing out examples.
    MIL could not use a stair lift because she cannot bend her knees back (arthritis for 50 years - which I would not say is her fault). - again no, but it's life. we aren't all the same.
    House is literally too small. - ye fair enough, I try not to go into individual cases when we are discussing large scale policies. The reason is we are all individual with our own experiences and realities.






    Only within the limits of her qualifications/abillity/location/age.
    I don't think there are better options out there for her at 58 (and yes age does come into it). - yes it does, Presumably your child is on the way to adulthood too though. Again in the grand scheme: People need to choose whether relocating for better employment, studying for extra qualifications or whatnot is the right decision for their preferred outcomes.

    None of us (ncluding the staff) think it's realistic to look after someone 24/7 when they are very physically and emotionally demanding.
    The staff work hard but are emotionally detached.
    My MIL can be quite vile e.g. accusatory and it's quite difficult to just let that go over your head if your emotionally attached (apart from the fact that the finance, physical space doesn't work). - ofcourse and that's totally understandable. Which is often why having external support is preferred.


    Im grateful for your suggestions, but do you not think if there was a simply answer like just changing job or getting a stair lift that it would be done if it was that easy? - ofcourse, and my suggestions are more observations on a grand scale, not individual. My point is that everyone has a story.




    Actually I (and we as a family) are very grateful for the free care at home, hospital and nursing care we've received. I wasn't saying the state is at fault at all. In fact I believe people should pay more personally and be less tax payer funded (that to my personal detriment with loss of inheritance so no vested interest). - agreed.




    My point was that if state pension age goes up for women (quite rightly IMO) we (the state and society as a whole) can't expect them to be 24/7 carers also which they would have been in the past at a time when women didn't commonly work. - ah I see. I look at state and society as two separate entities. Well one entity and one intangible mess. There does seem to be some pressure from 'society' (I don't like the term, we aren't unified in any way) for women to be carers. But personally I have no issue with it. Women tend to be more empathetic and person focused than men. (that's not a bad thing!)


    Originally posted by lisyloo
    I think it's down to each family unit to decide how to best care for their elders.
    • GlasweJen
    • By GlasweJen 10th Aug 18, 6:01 PM
    • 6,598 Posts
    • 11,907 Thanks
    GlasweJen
    Jointly POA - it is perfectly legitimate for the other POA to organise the management, payment and payroll of the other POA.
    Originally posted by Rambosmum
    And will the sister be happy to throw £6000 a year away on her sister providing 10 hours a week on light housework? I know I wouldn't. My oldest sister would probably propose something like this and in the nicest way possibly she could never achieve a £12.50 an hour job in the real world but she's had child tax credits to prop up her lifestyle all her days and when her youngest leaves education she's in for a shock unless she comes up with something, I wouldn't be surprised if she batted out with something like this.

    My younger sister on the other hand IS a trained nurse and wouldn't dream of such a scheme, she'd put a lid on this straight away. Mums financial guardians are myself and my twin brother so mums safe from a harebrained plan like that. Mums welfare guardian is my younger sister for medical experience and older sister for compassionate input. My younger brother is my financial back up.
    Bounts, Quidco, Shop and Scan, Receipt Hog, Costco Cashback, Debit card cashback

    NOT BUYING IT
    (unless it's on offer and can get my loyalty points)
    • Red-Squirrel
    • By Red-Squirrel 10th Aug 18, 6:20 PM
    • 3,046 Posts
    • 8,048 Thanks
    Red-Squirrel
    Quote:
    And? That's their own fault
    Originally posted by Comms69
    So you think that if everybody chose to earn above the median wage, that would be possible?
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

35Posts Today

4,323Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • Ta ta... for now. This August, as I try and do every few yrs, I'm lucky enough to be taking a sabbatical. No work,? https://t.co/Xx4R3eLhFG

  • RT @lethalbrignull: @MartinSLewis I've been sitting here for a good while trying to decide my answer to this, feeling grateful for living i?

  • Early days but currently it's exactly 50 50 in liberality v democracy, with younger people more liberal, older more? https://t.co/YwJr4izuIj

  • Follow Martin