Inheritance and care home fees

Yes I can see that I did misunderstand - sorry!

Not likely as you presumably have no medical records of anything putting you on notice that care might be needed eg diagnosis of dementia etc

Where I worked the self funders didn't get anything more than publicly funded except if they wanted a special holiday, say a cruise,they would fund that for themself and the carer/carers who went with them. If they were funded for 2 to 1 care they didn't pay any additional staffing costs, if they were funded for 1 to 1 care and two needed to go they would pay towards additional staffing costs.

The homes I worked for were not for elderly care, the people in them were often sent by the court or by the LA if the family could no longer safely care for t hem. I think I did mention that some of our residents would need 2 to 1 care so they'd go on holiday with two carers. Yes even those with significant needs don't need to be treated like criminals locked up for life.

There are limited care homes for younger adults. Even in well populated areas, there aren’t a plethora of care homes who accept younger adults. Uprooting someone who has a brain injury doesn’t sound like a sensible idea especially if you know it’s temporary.

Absolutely. The self funders get a slightly bigger bedroom with slightly nicer furniture and maybe a view of a the garden.
Oops hit post too soon. It’s all ridiculous really. It’s the care homes who are charging whatever they like, it isn’t the LA funded people who are being subsidised.

The whole "subsidising" thing is nothing but lies peddled by care home owners. They can operate just fine off the council rates but they charge loads more to private funders simply because they can, then dress it up by saying they dont get enough off the councils. It's just a profiteering racket and causes division between the private and council funders.

If you're talking about gifts to your children or grandchildren and you're just in your sixties, I couldn't see the most overzealous official deciding that was deprivation of assets. It's not a bad idea. After all many parents give their children money for deposits etc. How far back can they realistically go? Someone at 65 giving their son £50K from their savings to buy a house? That's so many families nowadays, sadly. And yes the parent may well need care twenty years down the line, but if they take that approach, any of us might!

If you have no reasonable expectation of needing future care at the time you give away assets then it isn’t deprivation of said assets. However, if your age or health, or any other factors make it likely that you would need care, then it is. The problem is that your interpretation of that definition and the LAs are likely to be two entirely different things. And there is no limit to the amount of time the LA can go back in order to try to prove it. The point with OP’s situation is that the funds in question do not yet belong to his wife. They are her mothers’ to bequeath as she wishes, and OP is looking for the best way prevent that bequest being eaten up by care fees in a couple of years when it could potentially be put in trust to provide an income for life.

If someone is LA funded then most of their pensions/income if any would go to the care home to reduce the amount the LA has to pay leaving the resident with just a small amount of "pocket money" for toiletries, hairdressing, chiropodist, clothes, things to make the room nice. That £180,000 in a trust would fund all this.
On the other hand would it count as deprivation of assets if I started giving away assets now rather than once needing care (recently retired and luckily have funds at the end of the month)

You’re missing something very important though. She is currently in a home being funded by the LA. That wont be a luxury place by any stretch of the imagination. She is NOW at the mercy of Social Services because she isnt a self funder. The money would provide at least 3 year’s worth of care in a much nice home than she may already be in, and once it falls below the £24k threshold she will revert to being partially funded.

There’s also the fact that self funders who live in care homes alongside LA funded residents invariably pay more for care to subsidise the LA in paying for those who can’t pay themselves. My Aunt is paying approx £1000 a month more than she would be paying if she were LA funded - exactly the same facilities. Assuming she lives 5 years, that’s a whopping £60,000 from her own funding pot, paid towards the care of others. OP will be in this position if his wife’s inheritance is put towards care fees - it will all be swallowed up and not all of it for her own benefit.

There’s a huge difference between residents in care homes who choose to go there because they have no one else to look out for them. The person in question here sounds very much like she’s in a home due to very significant needs and that her DH plus other carers cannot safely look after her.

Yep. This. Not DW’s money. MiL can do what she wants with her own money.

Nope. It’s not a legal loophole. The money doesn’t belong to DW until her mum passes and bequeaths it to her. If MiL wants to use the money to set up a trust fund so her daughter has financial security for life instead of seeing it swallowed up in care fees in just a couple of years, that makes sense and it’s up to her. And how do you know which generation DW is from. OP hasn’t mentioned age.

He’s trying to work out the best use of a considerable sum of money that they’re never likely to see again. £180,000 is a huge sum of money that will be swallowed up in care fees in 3-4 years. OP’s wife isn’t elderly, she’s disabled as a result of a brain tumour and could be in care for 30-40 years. Added to that the money doesn’t belong to DW, it belongs to MiL. MiL can do as she pleases with it and legally and morally there is nothing wrong with her wanting to set up a trust fund that will ensure her substantially disabled daughter has financial security, given the circumstances. That’s his view.

You wouldn’t. I misunderstood and I owe you an apology because I assumed from your first few posts that you were trying to sidestep care fees and hang on to MiL’s money. This is clearly not the case, sorry. If your MiL has capacity and agrees, then there’s nothing wrong with her setting up a trust for her daughter. What’s not clear (at least to me !!) from your previous posts is whether the whole £180,000 inheritance is protected from MiL’s own care fees. If not then she could only bequeath the residue of her estate after these fees were settled. If her own assets are protected and the whole £180,000 will be available, given your DW’s expectation of needing care for the duration of her lifetime, then I think it’s sensible to look at every option to make sure her future is protected. And allowing a considerable sum of money which you are never likely to see as a lump sum again to be swallowed up in care fees over a couple of years, is not the best use of that money.

Exactly.

Assuming no undue influence etc it's MIL's decision and hers alone.

I don’t approve of a two tier system where wealthy people can make similar financial decisions to protect their assets, while ordinary Joe Public, trying to do their best for a vulnerable family member gets put through the wringer
@Rosscameasdoody
The harsh truth is that wealth gives you power, the power to protect your wealth. The more money you have the harder it is to get that money off of you.
Poorer people have less power, it's much easier to to exploit them and extract money from, them because they lack the resources to resist or fight back.

Ok, I apologise for my tone. The principle stands.

As for CHC, it should be an integral part of any social care review to consider CHC. It dorsn't have to be a medical professional doing it.

Yes, it can be dificult. All the more reason to start early.

It’s not a question of just applying for it. He has to secure an assessment for it. I’ve been through the process and it’s like pulling teeth to even get them to agree to assess, and then you spend months appealing when you’re inevitably turned down, because it’s designed so that almost no-one qualifies. Yes, there’s a financial assessment of ability to pay, but if MiL leaves the inheritance to OP instead of his wife, he can invest the money for his wife’s future. If he was off to the Bahamas with it, I’d agree with you, but he’s trying to do his best for his wife, given that she’s going to be in care much longer than the average elderly person. He’s in a difficult and very distressing situation.

Oh my goodnesss I hate it when people interfere.

The case you referred to the settlor had already died leaving the money absolute to the disabled beneficiary,

In this case the mother is alive, has testamentary capacity and can leave money into a trust. ….and very specifically a vulnerable persons trust to be used for the daughter - not the OP - the daughter. She can leave the residual after that to charity if she wants.

In the case cited they sought to do a ‘variation’. to do a variation the person who is receiving the money ( the disabled person) or someone on their behalf has to refused the gift and post it into a trust. This would be a case of deprivation of assets.

God and I as an ex carer can’t as yet get a job due to being out of law for 20 years - give me strength.

And its the job of a LA social worker to jump through hoops to get it for her. Which, if you hadn't already decided that SS must be terrible, you'd consider. And 'ordinary Joe public' does not, by and large, have scores of thousnds spare.

Look, I'm not happy about the uber rich getting out of paying either - which is why the xare costs cap was NOT the panacea others here think.. But the answer is not to rook the taxpayers, many of whom genuinely have nothing.