Inheritance and care home fees

It only counts for the mum, if she doesn't leave it to the daughter, or leaves it in trust, then it is never the daughters to spend.

For those thay say the state should pay for all social care - which of your taxes do you want to go up to fund this? Because the costs will be enormous. They are already bankrupting some councils.

Correct, and the MIL can direct it via her will as she wishes, it doesn't have to go to the daughter.
Basically it is the MIL decision.

While I do think this is a bit cheeky, do posters really think that other people aren't doing this?

Plus the vitriol against the op who is dealing with a really difficult situation is unpleasant. How awful for someone so young to be incapacitated and need care for the rest of their lives.

Strange how on MN the default is not to report benefit fraud and yet someone has tried to report him already when he's done nothing wrong!

Op you need specialist legal advice. I know my friends got this as one of their adult children was in long term care and they were concerned what would happen if he directly inherited alongside the other siblings.

I would get your MIL to re-draft her will to leave your wife a Life Interest in the INCOME only from her estate, with you as remainderman. what is called an immediate post death interest trust.

This would allow you to invest the money and your wife have the interest, on your wife's death you would become entitled to the money.

You have yourself and a solicitor as trustees, in the wording you can make it clear your wife has no claim on the capital, only the interest received.

I suppose the lesson here for anybody who is interested is, please kindly encourage older people to think about and face up to uncomfortable conversations about money.
An LPA made so siblings are equals is a good start.

I agree with this. I find it quite abhorrent that people are saying the lady in question should fund her own care ‘because she can’ when it is infact, a disability. There’s a whopping difference between old age care that everyone would require, and care for a life with a disability. I think the welfare state should pay and see nothing wrong with this. The tax payer pays for many other disabilities PIP DLA etc so why is this any different whatsoever.

But the OP's wife hasn't received the money, and her mother will have the money until she (the mother) is dead. So there is no deprivation of assets.

Im with you. I don't want to give the government any money that have earned and paid tax on while someone who hasn't worked gets to get care for free. Why should we??

Is this the same Essex county council who gave someone £500000 to set up Facebook and social media accounts for COVID information

Too late for me. Its not a nice thing to happen.

You can appeal a CHC decision, or try again later on. Both my DF and DFiL got it.
Our wills are set up so me and DH own half our house each, so if I die first my half of our house goes straight to my children, so if DH then needs care costs only his half is taken into account, and vice versa. We did it for blended family reasons but also means our kids shld end up with some £ if one of us ends up in a care home.

Also, the people who can pay are being overcharged to help subsidise those who can't.

We all know this has to paid for but It's not a fair system atm.

I’ve lost my inheritance from my grandma as she’s gone into a care home and we’ve had to spend all of it on looking after her.

It’s shit but you can’t guarantee an inheritance and just how care home fees work.

Fair comment to those who say MiL can change her will; that's right as it's her money.

Would it be considered deprivation of assets though, when the assets (potential inheritance) don't yet (and may never) actually be in the possession of the individual? The money in question still belongs to the MIL - and she can determine to whom she wills it. And if she lives another 3 years in a nursing home, most of her money will have already gone to pay for her own care.

To those who are making nasty comments to and about the OP - this is a man whose wife has become profoundly disabled and her and their future is totally changed from the life they presumably imagined they'd have. A bit of sympathy and empathy wouldn't go amiss as he tries to process what has happened and what can be done to make things at least a bit better.

You have no idea if the OPs wife needs 24hr medical care. I'd guess it's highly unlikely that she does as she is being funded by the council. If they could hand those costs over to the NHS believe me they would.
Just because someone needs 24hr care does not mean it needs to be done by medical professionals. Again there are hundreds of thousands of people up and down the country who have all their care needs managed appropriately by formal and informal carers. You don't need to be a nurse to change a catheter bag or a peg feed, or to hoist someone in and out of bed.

The money has not vested yet so there is no deprivation. The mum has freedom to do what she likes with her money.

You can set up a vulnerable persons trust which protects the assets from social care / benefit claw back. There are pre requisites eg a certain PIP level which your wife should be on it in care. You do need that properly drafted by legal who specialise in this - not your average high street law.

For people having a go it’s no worse then making lifetime gifts to avoid IHT or not paying tax on ISA as they are in a protected wrapper or not paying IHT on pensions or claiming child benefit despite having crazy high incomes because you sheltered money in a pension to reduce income.

I’m sorry you have had such a tough time OP. It must be tough having 2 family members in care.

No one gets the NHS for free we pay for in our taxes. The more tax you pay the more you pay for the nhs. Because if the wife received an inheritance she in fact would be better off than most of us. If she has savings that should be used for her care. Why should I pay for her care? Whilst the husband goes on day trips with the money. Think she would prefer to have help to be fed, bathed, cleaned on a daily basis, than a jolly to London to see a show.

@Hateam the social worker would have done a continuing healthcare checklist when assessing her needs. If she was entitled to CHC then it means that the council pay less which of course would be their aim. So it's very doubtful your wife is entitled to CHC.

There are hundreds of thousands of people in the UK who are under 65 and who have 24hr care needs that don't come under NHS funding.