Inheritance and care home fees

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. His wife will likely spend more than thirty plus years in care. She very likely qualifies for NHS continuing care, but she won’t get it because the NHS teams in charge will jump through hoops to deny even the basic assessment for eligibility. £180,000 will last a couple of years paying for care, and then for the rest of her life she will be at the mercy of social services. He’s looking to make sure that a significant lump sum which they will never see again is spent in his wifes’ best interests. I think I’d judge him more harshly if he didn’t do this in the circumstances.

Gently, because you are clearly having a difficult time of it, you can’t “give” the council money that doesn’t belong to you.
And as PP said, and I say, most of us with DM or MIL in care have not minded in the slightest when an asset has had to be sold for their care.
I would imagine that if I couldn’t care for my DP at home, I would be delighted that I could use (via PoA) their inheritance to pay for a better care home than the council offers: my DM was in a LA one and it was grim! Selling her house, and using up the “inheritance“ to pay for her private care home care was the best thing that could have been done with the money!

If she qualifies for CHC apply for it. And knock off the emotive asset stripping language and implication that social services funded care is bad nonsense.

Ther's s a financial assessment of ability to pay. And the very worst care home i have ever seen was also the most expensive

This has been delayed indefinitely by the Labour Govt

It's a comment on another post not to OP. And yes, I would and have made the same general comment in the same circs. Fully expect to pay for my own care out of my own inheritance, because it's the law AND it's socially just.

Do you approve of theft and fraud in your own life?

If you read the OP’s more recent posts he’s clarified what his intentions are. His wife isn’t elderly, she has a serious medical condtion and may well qualify for NHS continuing care. She’s likely to be in care for much longer than for elderly decline and the OP is looking for the best way to secure the inheritance for an income for her, rather than have it all go in a couple of years on care. Assuming he’s genuine for a moment, he’s not doing anything wrong by looking at the options for a trust fund to provide an income for his wife, given how long the situation is likely to continue. Absolutely amazes me how rich people can plan financially for these events, but woe betide the ordinary man in the street looking to protect a vulnerable family member from being stripped of their assets and left at the mercy of social services care for potentially thirty years or more.

If I'm reading that correctly there is a key factual difference.

That case relates to a deed of variation; a device to re-write a will posthumously usually used for tax etc reasons. In the case referred to the person benefitting from the will is asking for authority to execute such a deed. The intention of his doing so is to preserve his title to means tested benefits. That would be deprivation.

If the OP's Mother in law has capacity and wants to re-write her will to put her daughter's legacy into a trust that's a different thing. Provided she's properly advised and there's no suggestion of coercion by the OP she can do that.

Contrary to my initial post that's not deprivation becuase it's her money and the mother derives no benefit

Would you say this to someone irl or are you just nasty from behind the safety of a keyboard ?

That case law is in respect of means tested state benefits though. The rules around care fees are different.

I actually thought this to begin with and posted to that effect, but reading the OP’s more recent posts it seems clear that’s not what’s happening. His wifes’ care isn’t for elderly decline and she could be in care in excess of thirty years. It’s a serious medical condition, and from OP’s posts he is helping with therapy and physio. My own opinion is that OP should look into free NHS continuing care, because it sounds as though she qualifies - care services don’t routinely advise people that this is an option, but there is a duty to assess for it. In the event that his wife doesn’t qualify for that then OP is trying to secure an income for his wife from the inheritance, instead of having it blown in a couple of years on what quite frankly are extortionate care fees. Given how long she’s going to be in care, I think that’s sensible.

Good.

@Hateam I've just found this online. It's looks like case law is not in your favour, I'm afraid.

www.willwriters.com/blog/icymi-f-v-r/

Of course he has.

Utterly repellent attitude.

@Hateam do you actually not realise that you are trying to rob the public??

I don’t understand your view here at all.

@Hateam I'm a tax payer and I don’t think this is fair. In any case what you’ve said isn’t accurate- this would be a legal loophole to set up a trust to deprive a person who needs care of assets so the public have to fund their care despite them having wealth. It’s completely unethical!

This lady is from a generation that had a significant financial advantage over those who have come after them, and are currently paying the bulk of taxes. She should pay for her own care since she can!

I only pointed it out because it hadn’t been mentioned by that poster and not everyone is aware of it. My cousin certainly wasn’t until she looked into downsizing and was told that half of any profit would be used for care fees. The disregard only applies to the property you are resident in at the time of the financial assessment for fees - that’s not really made clear until you come to move to another property.

@Rosscameasdoody of course that would happen. Why wouldn't it? No one ends up homeless but they don't get to keep the newly liquid capital that's been acquired through a house sale. In your family's case, the sale of the house meant your aunt then had additional money to contribute towards her care costs. At least your niece was able to safeguard her half of the profits because of sensible financial planning.

Read my post again. I didn’t say he would lose his home. At all. What I said was that If he downsizes any profit will go towards care - the disregard only applies to the house he is living in at the time of the financial assessment. I’ve actually lived it. My aunt and disabled daughter joint owners of their home. Aunt went into care and house was disregarded because disabled daughter was resident there as her only home. She wanted to downsize as she couldn’t manage the upkeep and half of the difference in price between the disregarded house and the downsize had to be used for Aunts’ care. It’s nothing to do with the profit becoming savings, it’s the fact that the new property is not the one used for the disregard at the time of the financial assessment, so circumstances have changed. We’re saying the same thing.

@Rosscameasdoody

"jellycatandkittens
@MistyMountainTop the OP would not lose his home to pay for care, as a home that is occupied by a spouse etc is disregarded in a financial assessment until they no longer need it. So stop with the hyperbole.

And what you fail to mention is that if he wants to downsize any profit would be appropriated by the LA to pay for care. The disregard only applies to the house he’s living in at the moment. And if his DW is young, the chances are she will live until OP needs care himself so it would be split."

Is that not obvious, though? If someone moves and makes a profit then that profit becomes savings so will be taken into account. Why wouldn't it? I was clear in my point that the home lived in by a spouse will be disregarded in a financial assessment.

I think that people have no idea about anything and comment without any personal experience.

The Government has created the notion of vulnerable persons trust to protect the weakest in society. Without that protection, people would be leaving money to other family members to ‘look after’ the disabled family member with no protections thst money would be used for thst purpose. Clearly they won’t be as stupid as to leave it to the disabled family member to be swallowed up in care home fees. The Government acknowledges that having a life firm of care needs is a blow. Moreover they also protect the monies of people who receive compensation as part of their injuries.

Most people use some tax avoidance schemes eg paying into your pension is a tax avoidanc scheme as you don’t pay tax on monies paid in and can take out 25% tax free etc. Putting money into an isa is a tax avoidance scheme. Putting money into premium bonds is a tax avoidance scheme. So anyone who does thst who are you to judge someone using a legal method to avoid care home and benefit claw back? How many of you pay more into your pensions to so that you can claim child benefit?

I can’t believe that people attack the OP in his position and don’t show sympathy.

Ok, how about we stop all the mega rich people avoiding tax first? (I see plenty of it in my line of work) And all the million/billion dollar companies before we start pumping money into taking once in a lifetime sums of money from struggling people?

No one has played any systems yet. OPs wife doesn’t own the money yet.

Not all trusts are excluded from the financial assessment for social care. Therefore, this is more important than exit charges and other charges. There will be some exceptions if set up correctly as the wife of OP is a “vulnerable person”. Given the wife of OP has long term health and social care needs, she will most likely always need her income to be protected and managed by others.

Rachel Reeves has cancelled the planned cap of £86,000. It had been delayed due to Covid, but now there will not be a cap. If OPs mother lives a few more years there will be no inheritance to pass on.

Absolutely. Governments have gone to great lengths over the years to encourage certain behaviours through the tax and legal systems, and protecting inherited assets is one of them. Imagine if all those who have criticised this for "robbing the public purse" (!) were to turn their wrath on ISAs, for instance. "How dare people get away with not paying tax on their savings?"

Good luck to you, OP. I'm really sorry for your situation and hope that you can find good legal advice for your MIL.