Inheritance and care home fees

The seven year rule was scrapped some time ago. LA’s can go back as far as they want to prove deprivation of assets. Basically if you have a reasonable expectation that you will need care when you make financial arrangements which leave little or nothing for care, the LA will treat you as though you still have those assets and will not fund your care.

She is not diverting funds anywhere
She's leaving it in her will

Most posters are assuming MIL’s care fees are being met from a dwindling capital sum. It is entirely possible that they are being funded through a combination of pension and investment income and that the £180000 is the likely residue once she dies.

Sounds like u will need to remove the others from the care homes and look after them or pay what is due.

Fraud manager here.
Had a recent case referred to us (The LA) where family member has withdrawn all the money. Literally nothing has been done.
Social services had a word with the elderly person who said I don’t want my family to know that I’m aware they my money has been taken by X.
All this deprivation of assets appears to be utter bollocks in practice as there’s nothing we can do about it.
Police sat in on meetings, social services sat in. 🤷🏼‍♀️ Hands are tied as the elderly person has capacity, if she didn’t it would be a different matter apparently.

I do understand that you’d rather the council not get your inheritance, but really to avoid it morally speaking you should provide the care.

Exactly, so that they can accept LA funded residents, which attract a lower fee. You can cut it whatever way you want, it still means the same thing.

You haven’t really clarified how you think £180,000 will be left after MiL’s care fees are taken care of. Unless they are protected in some way all of her assets will be used for care, so in practicality any inheritance will only be what is left after care home fees are paid.

Its fraud. People should be ashamed of doing this.

You need to get out more Karen!!

OP, sorry about your wife but I hope ‘the tone of the replies’ makes you think long and hard about the morality of what you want to do. As hard as it is to watch a large sum of money go on care, that care is very costly (and valuable) and someone has to pay for it.

The actions you suggest don’t reflect particularly well on you.

@Hateam How do you know how much your MIL will leave in her will? If she lives for another 3 years, the sum you mentioned will be pretty much gone.

It still doesn’t change the facts. If you are in a care home which accepts LA funded residents you will pay more to subsidise them.

Yes, my DF died 4 years ago when my DM was only just showing signs of memory issues. I've been told if he had left his half of their property to my children in trust then it would have been safe. Def something I'll think about for the future!

There is no inheritance, MIL is still living.

As others have said, £180,000 would pay for about 2-3 years of care home fees. Even at 94, nobody knows how long she will live. According to the ONS the average life expectancy for 94 year olds is 97 years. She may spend all or most of her money on her own care.

I wasn’t talking about OP’s wife. I was talking about his MiL who is in care because of age decline. The intention is to divert funds from her own care so that OP’s wife can inherit. If it weren’t for the deprivation of assets rule, that would leave MIL dependent on someone else subsidising her care from their own funding pot when she has enough funds to cover it herself.

Germany introduced a social care tax over 20 years ago. We could do the same to avoid this sort of issue.

And the hypocrisy on this thread. Fine for local government to take someone's inheritance to pay care fees, but woe betide central government for taking inheritance tax to pay for other things.

Yes, sorry, I wasn’t referring to your wife, but your MiL. If everything was fair and equitable your wife’s care would be free. But we’re all in the same boat and it isn’t fair to walk away with a wad of cash and leave someone else subsidising care from their own savings.

The OP’s wife is not needing a care home due to old age. She needs it due to brain tumours. Same as you would need hospital treatment if you had a brain tumour.

Because people who self fund subsidise those who don’t. Why should OP be allowed to trouser £180,000 while someone else is subsidising others to the tune of up to £1000 a month ?

After nearly killing herself to improve this council owned home, she opened her own home. it was a family business we lived there. Pain in the neck as teenagers not allowed to play music. They ran it for 30 years mothers, fathers & daughters worked there. Had a good reputation. It was bought by a company who was doing the same with other homes. Hard work but happy times. Residents remembered fondly.