Spending downsizing cash

Op, totally understand your concern, your mum’s just enjoying the freedom of having what she wants.

Absolutely corridor the flat sale to pay for care, it’ll 3 years or so if she spent it all.

My parents are just about to hit 80 and have slowed down a bit in the last year after spending all their money on thing they like, including iro £100k on multiple cruises, similar amount on house updates. Their view is that life is for living and I certainly don’t begrudge that. What they haven’t done though is downsize. Still in a v large 4 bed that is exceptionally modern. Dad says there’s room for lift when they can’t manage the stair 😂.

Also give them a decent pot should they ever need care for 8 years or 4 years if both need it.

You can spend it on your yourself - home, holidays, etc. But they look at bank accounts to make sure you haven't siphoned it off to family to try to avoid it being used for your care.

Correct. Care needs to be taken over trying to deprive assets by "gifting" largevsums to grandchildren ot children, too.

It's shocking. If she had no money the council would pay £880 a week for the same room and care for her.

If she had no money she pay all but £25 of her state pension towards it.

Care fees can cost 5-6k a month. Renting out a flat is hardly going to cover tht unless the cared for person has significant other pensions etc as well.

I should add she spent £30,000 on care calls at home for my uncle in his last few years and then £15000 for a care home for the last 3 months of his life and since then has spent between £400 and up to £760 a months for 3 years for care at home for herself. So she has already spent approx £60,000+ without what she is currently spending.

It's shocking. If she had no money the council would pay £880 a week for the same room and care for her. I take it the extra £500 + she pays are the care home owner's profits.

My aunt is in a care home currently that is costing £1300 a week- about to go up to £1350. (£5200-£5,400 a month) and it's nothing very startling. In addition she still has a rented flat (£800) and a care package for that flat (£760 a month which has been cancelled but has to be paid for another month).

Her pensions/benefits come to £2000 a month. So it is eating her savings like mad. She had £115,000. It won't last long.

This position is unsustainable for people. I see what she gets for £1350 a week and it just does not cost that for her care- a small room with a bed a chair and a wardrobe and chest of drawers (not high quality), 3 meals a day which are tiny and drab and she barely eats. Two cups of tea and a packet biscuit delivered to her room. Her medication doled out. bath supposedly twice a week but usually once. Her clothing washed (and lost regularly despite being labelled with her name and room number).

To have her hair washed and blow dried once is an extra £20 a week. If she has a bar of chocolate they charge £1 a bar.

She does not require much help at all- dresses and washes herself.

She can no longer live at home but until a place comes up in sheltered accommodation- which will be slightly cheaper and give her some privacy and independence - she can not give up her home as her belongings are there and she is adamant she will not stay in a care home.

Are people not allowed to enjoy their money after a certain age incase they need care? At what age does depravation of assets become a consideration? My mother in her late 70s is thoroughly enjoying herself. She's going on more (expensive) holidays than she ever has before, her logic being that she's in good health so she's going to do it whilst she still can. Surely everyone who spend any money over and above basic living costs is guilty of depravation of assets should they need care, at any age. What's the criteria that LAs use?

It's probably 50/50 though on the financial relationship with your dad. ie - he knew she needed regining in or she wouldn't be comfortable/talen care of if he died & also financial abuse never taught her to budget/finance for herself.

Unless your relying on a inheritance id just let her get on with it and enjoy it while it lasts

Definitely encourage her to enjoy herself whilst she can still get out and about. I remember my Aunty going a bit mad with the spending after her husband died. She outlived him by about 15 yrs and was very happy indeed. 😂

Let her spend her money I say, you only live once.

I would be concerned if you felt she was maybe being extorted in some way or being taken advantage for her home renovations and she had been ripped off? If not then let her do her thing, especially the holidays!!

she might never need cared for when she gets older, what would the point have been in saving all that cash?

a relative of ours died suddenly after living a miserable frugal life, no extravagances, no holidays, penny pinching to his spouse who died 10 years previously practically in poverty. He had been saving the cash himself and had over 200k in savings which no one knew until he died. His children didn’t need or indeed expect any inheritance they were shocked by this as felt they grew up with nothing and were a bit angry when they found out as their family life could have been so different growing up.

Let her crack on- none of us know what the future holds!!

Flat could be rented out to cover care home fees. That's what happened to my nan's house. Then sold when she sadly passed.

Good on her enjoying the money while she still can

Someone who is young and otherwise is good health is more likely to survive severe illness because 1) they are young and otherwise in good health and 2) the doctors are more likely to take a more aggressive approach to treating that illness.

Someone is old has the odds stacked against them 1) because our bodies function less well the older we get and 2) the doctors will not go all out to treat them.

If you think doctors don't treat people differently based on age, and that being given worse medical treatment doesn't have an impact on your survival rates, you're kidding yourself.

Do you really think a doctor is going to try as hard to save the life of an 80-something year person as they are a 20-something year old with a lifetime ahead of them? I stand by my point that getting ill when you're older means time is about to run out, and you may as well enjoy every day you've got at that point.

PS To be clear, I'm not angry at you and I hope I don't upset you. The above just reads angrily because I'm still in the angry stage of grief - it's not actually aimed at you at all.

The OP states most of the money has gone on the flat, i.e. enhancing a capital asset that can later be sold! The local authority can put a charge on that flat and it will be worth more than a flat that hasn't been updated in years.

She hasn't frittered away £150k. She's gone on one holiday, and done up her home.

Highly unlikely! 😭

From personal experience - our local authority most definitely does use age as an indicator of future care needs, regardless of current health. They assess as though you still own the assets you have disposed of, so any help with fees kicks in later than it would otherwise do and affects whether you are accepted for residential care, as you have to prove you can provide a certain amount of upfront fees. I think the problem is that each LA seems to have its own rules as to how fees are assessed and charged, and sometimes it’s really complicated.

Good for her. Listen to the part of you that thinks that. If she needs a care home her flat can be sold. I wish my parents had spent their money.

I don’t see anything in OP’s post to suggest that inheritance has anything to do with her concerns. She’s seen first hand how quickly another relatives money is being eaten up by care home fees and she’s worried her mum won’t have enough money up front to be considered for care, should she need it. And at 87 it’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that she may need care in the near future. So why do you think it’s about her inheritance, given her concerns are perfectly reasonable - she’s clearly worried that with no-one to say no to her mum, her spending is out of control. And in the event she does need care fairly soon I can assure you that the local authority won’t view her burning through £150k as inconsequential if it’s money she could reasonably have expected to have to pay for her care.

Well the first point doesn't apply to OP's mum as she has no current health issues. Age alone isn't an indicator of having 'reasonable expectation of needing care'.

Regarding the second point - OP's mum still has a flat that could be sold to fund care, if needed. In fact half her money has gone on this, increasing its value so really it's an investment.

I'd advise caution if she was renting, going on lots and lots of expensive holidays and determined to spend her last penny. But she's a homeowner, spent money on improving said home. And went on 'one' expensive holiday.

You can never predict how long someone will need care for. Say her flat pays for 2 years of care, the extra money could pay for another 2.. well. She might need 6 years. Or only 2. We never know.

There has to be a limit, IMO earmarking her flat for that, and spending the rest is fair enough. But again, just my humble opinion.

Sorry for your loss, but my point was only that you can’t predict if someone will survive even severe illness in old age - it depends on overall state of health at the time the illness starts.

No there isn’t. There used to be a seven year rule, similar to the one for inheritance tax, but that stopped some time ago. Disposing of property or funding to avoid care fees is called deprivation of assets and the local authority can go back as long as they need to during investigations.

Tell that to my dead dad.

He was only in his 70s and he absolutely got worse medical treatment because of his age.

I am incredibly delighted on your behalf that your mother is still here. As I said, no one in my family has made it to 87 let alone 93, so I am pleased for you.

But I don't think at 80-something or 90-something it's realistic to expect a major disease to be treated aggressively by a doctor in this country, so I don't think worrying about the future is really necessary.

Your mum is lucky. She's not the norm.

From personal experience I agree entirely. My mum has breast cancer, advanced vascular dementia and suffers from the effects of a stroke. She didn’t qualify for NHS continuing health care despite being quite severely affected and social services arranged for carers to come in three times a day. Mum lives with us and I had first hand experience of how inadequate the care was.

If she refused to wash they wouldn’t force her. They barely knew how to make a sandwich and there were so many occasions that they turned up so late in the mornings that I had to shower and change mum due to incontinence, so there was nothing for them to do when they did arrive. Mum was charged almost all of her income based on a set number of hours of care per week - in reality the time spent by the carers was barely half the assessed amount so mum was paying for care she wasn’t getting. We stopped it after two male carers turned up to shower her and she was so distressed she was almost hysterical.

We now have one private carer coming in for an hour in the mornings to shower, dress and breakfast her. It’s more targeted and although it’s more expensive, mum’s much happier, in a better routine and has a good rapport with a carer she knows and trusts. The social care system in the UK is broken and vulnerable people are being ripped off by massive costs for inadequate care.

For the people saying “sign over the property/money” there’s a time frame as to when the money becomes “protected” (like 10 years or something 🤔).