Spending downsizing cash

Regardless of what you’d choose, if dementia comes calling you’re not going to be safe in your own home and residential care is the only option. After seeing my mum blossom when we finally bit the bullet I’ve changed my mind about care homes.

upthehills1, this is me absolutely.thank you x

toomuchfaff, what about the taxes she or her husband may have paid over the years to keep the can't be arsed to work brigade? !!! It's her money and she should spend it how she wants, because I'll tell you something, I've worked for 50 years and should I get a lump sum of cash I'll blow the lot !!!

Maybe she does understand but has made the choice to improve her living situation now and make her home nice with the intention of living there as long as she possibly can?

The majority of elderly people would choose to stay in their home as long as possible, until death in fact. Everyone has different priorities in life

Did you mean to use ‘digitalis’ as in the toxic Foxglove, instead of Dignitas? 😆

I would guess maybe some of the spending is coping with the death of her partner maybe?

If your intensions are her wellbeing vs looking for inheritance vs you concerned you may have to pay for her care. Have a think about what it is.

Its her money and her right to spend it.
If you're going to talk to her do it for kind reasons :)

My Mum chose to stay in her own home and have carers 4 times a day. It helped that she had known those carers for 13 years as they had looked after my brother. Mum had worked in a care home before giving up to look after my dad and brother at home and always vowed to never have to go in one. She had a fall and broke her pelvis aged 81, after coming out of hospital she was bed ridden for 6 months before she died peacefully in her sleep at home where she wanted to be.

But you agreed when I said her intention was probably to use the proceeds of her flat to pay for care if she needs it. Say she can live independently for another five years, she can spend £15k a year and still have her flat to pay for any care she might need. It’s got to be worth enough to cover at least a couple of years in a care home.

I do see your point about care. My nan had a lot of money from a lifetime of good fortune and good financial management from her and my grandad, they had a nice life and travelled, after he died she wasn’t interested in doing lots of stuff but she did do some home improvements.

She had dementia and needed care and I must say it really made a difference that she had the means to get a place in any home she / her children chose and was able to be in one in a familiar location, with extremely high quality - thus expensive - care. No shade at all on funded care, in terms of individual caters, it’s just not comparable in terms of resources.

yes, it is a small chance that your mum will
need care and I think people are right that your mum should enjoy living her life. But I can understand why you feel concerned.

The third option is to sell your own home - which you no longer require - and use the proceeds to pay for your care. Which is presumably OP’s mum’s intention. I imagine that her motivation in downsizing in the first place was to free up some cash to live a little.

I understand your concerns but she’s probably trying to make her life a little better in her twilight years. I’m sure now she has updated everything she will probably keep some funds past for future needs. I’m sure if she does need care in the future you’ll be glad she had some fun with her money as it’s probably her last chance to do this. X

My point is that if you dispose of your assets you’re throwing away your ability to choose what type of care you receive. While the LA has an obligation to provide care, they won’t pay for residential care if home care will suffice. So yes, it’s a conscious choice. Either make provision for your own care and have some autonomy or run the risk of ending up trapped in your own home and reliant on carers coming in for a few minutes three or four times a day to provide a basic level of care.

She sounds like she's having a great time, you only live once..maybe see if she wants some company on her next trip 😉

Worth adding that LAs are very circumspect over taking legal action, they have to be careful not to waste public funds, and taking action costs a lot of money - more importantly judges are split in their view on these cases, a good few have gone against the LAs (for example the Palfrey Case), every one that goes against establishes a tranche of case law that impinges on the LAs likelihood of a favourable outcome.

Therefore they are likely only to use threats, in the hope the opposition will crumble, if they don't cave in, normally the LA will fold up their tent and move on after a few years of threatening noises and cut their losses.

In the pp's case, her SiL had a bona fide disregard, under no circumstances should the adviser have been making aggressive noises, she has a disregard, that's it, case closed.

As your SiL is disabled, she gets a mandatory disregard, meaning the house value cannot form part of the assessment.

You are correct that if she moves during the disregard period (whilst her mum is still alive) then they can go after the 50% because the disregarded house was in effect liquidated to cash which can't be disregarded

After mum has died though, that's it, the house is your SiLs free and clear, as it never formed part of the assessment, never had a lien placed on it etc..

As they owned the house 50/50 it's unlikely the LA could have forced the issue even if she was not disabled, they would first have to work out the value of 50%, which is not actually 50% as its not worked out that way, it can be nil. Then they would have to get an order for sale, and as they cannot render anyone homeless, house her.

As soon as you have more than one owner it gets very complicated, and potentially very expensive for the LA to do anything, of course the common scenario is husband and wife without younger people involved, generally they now use a DPA, where a charge is placed on the property at the agreement of the owners, and collect when the person dies.

BUT, holidays make sod all difference to the LA delivering care, the Adult Social Services have a legal obligation to provide care - they can't refuse if it is a real assessed need. If they find evidence of deprivation of assets, in reality they will still have to provide the care in the end. In the meanwhile they will try and recover the assets, but if its been spent on holidays it won't be retrievable

@Lovelysausagedogscrumpy very few people can pay for care homes except by selling their house. The costs are enormous.

I think that’s fine as it goes. But at what age will you downsize and give away the difference to your kids ? Because, as mentioned by a few pp’s, the Local Authority may not agree that the intention wasn’t to avoid care fees if you’re at an age when you could reasonably expect to have care needs.

I’ll give you an example. SiL lives with her elderly mum - they each owned fifty percent of the home they live in until her mum decided to sign over her half to my SiL five years ago. SiL is disabled and can’t look after her mum alone as her needs are increasing. She arranged home care with the LA and during the financial assessment she was told that if her mum needed residential care at any point, although normally she would be assessed as though she still owned that 50% share, because SiL is disabled and permanently resident/part owner of their home, they wouldn’t count it as an asset.

However, If SiL decided to downsize after her mum went into full time care, any profit from the sale would have to be used towards care fees as the arrangement only applies to the original home. The adviser said she has seen the local authority take action against relatives to reclaim money and also against people who have downsized and given the profits to children. It’s that all important question as to whether you could reasonably have expected to have care needs, at the time you took that action. And that decision rests with the Local Authority. Given how strapped they are for funding these days, I think application of the letter of the law will be their default.

Yes. In my experience the LA will look more carefully at the spending habits of an 87 year old because at that age they have a reasonable expectation of care needs - that’s clarified in the wording of the legislation. That doesn’t mean that those who spend their funds throughout their younger years should be considered ‘acceptable’ because with the care system as it is, and until such time as later life care is properly financed in some other way, it’s incumbent on everyone who is reasonably able, to make provision for themselves if we’re not to push the burden onto others. And no, I don’t agree with it. At all. As I’ve stated several times.

I’m not talking about the difference of standards of care within a residential setting. I’m talking about the difference in being able to afford residential care as the most appropriate option by self funding, rather than having to rely on the local authority who will most likely want to provide carers in your own home.

In this area at least, residential care at the expense of the council is a last resort and home care is the norm, regardless of whether it’s the most appropriate option or not, because it’s cheaper and doesn’t involve assessment of assets beyond income and savings, and in most cases the person being cared for has to make a contribution from their income. I have a friend whose mother, having no assets, at the age of 91 was assessed as needing home care - carers four times a day and a brief check at night. She was a known fall risk and only received council funding for residential care after she was admitted to hospital with a broken hip and pelvis.

I agree that the care system is broken and gouges vulnerable people with exorbitant fees, but my point is that while it’s the system we have, people trying to circumvent fees when they’re perfectly able to pay, push the burden onto others and make the problem worse. I don’t understand why anyone with the means to ensure appropriate care would want to leave themselves open to a miserable old age by deliberately skinting themselves and then relying on the state to pick up the tab.