Fed up of reading threads asking how they can get out of paying care home fees.

Absolutely agree @ElevenBells. My parents lived in a council house. They got onto the housing list in the early 1970s when the house they privately rented was so damp we had mildew on our bedclothes in the winter and ice on the wall paper.

They worked split shifts in factories because they couldn't afford childcare so made sure one of them was home with us when we got home from school. Dad wasn't very well educated as he'd been ill when he was little so missed a lot of school (and you didn't have a TA or help in the classroom then, you were told you were stupid and that was it). He and mum left school at 14 years old, both during the war.

I honestly do not remember either of them claiming any benefit other than child benefit until they got to be pensioners (well, dad didn't as he died when he was three weeks off retirement). Mum went into a care home with dementia in her late 80s. Her pension went towards it and the council paid the rest. She had worked for 46 years, didn't go abroad until we were old enough to pay for her, dad fixed their car as they couldn't afford a garage to do it and he always had old bangers. We didn't have free school meals or access to help with our uniform.

They worked, they were not scroungers.

And, of course, if you have to go into care and your partner still lives in your bought house the house won't be taken to pay for care until the day they move out or die. Which could be years down the line if, say, the person not in care is a bit younger and is fit. One of my friends is married to a man who is 15 years older than her. If he goes into care the council will not get their money, potentially, for at least 15 years. In which time I would imagine the price of their house will have risen quite a bit.

Security is a good reason to wait. While you are giving your children theirs you are risking your own…

Yes, the nicer the better.

Can you explain?

You can obviously take whatever action you like but what you propose is undoubtedly greedy and selfish. That isn't a matter of opinion but a fact, unless there is some massive drip feed about a child with special needs or something.

I don't understand how the 7 year rule thing keeps coming up over and over again. It's irrelevant to social care funding and debunked on every thread there is about it.

Also people who have cancer and need social care have to pay for it as well just like people with dementia. If you get parkinsons or Huntington disease, or motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis or alzheimers and need care you are means tested for social care and only stop paying when your funds go below the threshold OR your care needs become so unpredictable, complex, and intense that you meet the threshold for fully funded continuing healthcare.

Social care funding is dependent on need and ability to pay, diagnosis is irrelevant.

If it was sold off 'years ago' then its unlikely deprivation will be proved.

If the assets were disposed of before it was anticipated the person was likely to have care needs then that's fine - but people don't tend to do that though because they generally still need to live in their asset until they can no longer do so. If the legally hand it over years early to e.g. their kids but remain living it then it comes with the risk of losing it anywau through divorce / bankruptcy etc of their children.

And yes the council will bill someone with dementia of course they will. Whoever has lasting power of attorney or deputyship for their finances will have to pay it from any funds they have remaining or be at risk of legal consequences themselves. If that means recovering the funds from themselves or other relatives who have received the gifts that have deprived the person of capital then so be it.

care home. UK say that the average Nursing home (not care home) costs £1,410 per week.
That fortune equates to £201.43 per day - for 24/7 care, roof over your head, warm, food, lighting etc etc. = £8.39 per hour.
Minimum wage for 18 - 20 year old = £10.0 per hour
For over 21 year old - £12.21 per hour

Life is not fair, and never has been.
It starts at birth with the family you are born into and the country where you are born.

Most important point in the whole thread.

IMO we also need to allow nature to take its course when someone has advanced dementia and has a very poor quality of life. As in, treat illnesses palliatively and make them comfortable rather than with active treatment such as antibiotics. I drive past a local nursing home every day and there's frequently an ambulance outside. Patients in their 80s and 90s with advanced dementia should not be lining up at A&E in the back of ambulances. They just shouldn't. People are being kept alive artificially and it's causing immense suffering for them and their families - never even mind the cost.

It was like this when I was a junior doctor on the geriatrics wards 20 years ago, and nothing has changed, because we as a society are too scared to have a proper conversation about death, and when the time is right to let someone die.

The former owner of our house lived here independently until her death at 87. She died in an accident, which her increasing frailty and unsteadiness probably contributed to. But would it honestly have been better for her to have gone to a care home and been kept alive, safe but miserable for another decade?

The amount of inaccurate information on this thread is really scary & probably symptomatic of why the discussions around this are so hard. If ppl are looking at this seriously, probably worth looking at the following

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/siteassets/documents/factsheets/fs10_paying_for_permanent_residential_care_fcs.pdf

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/siteassets/documents/factsheets/fs38_property_and_paying_for_residential_care_fcs.pdf

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/siteassets/documents/factsheets/fs39-paying-for-care-in-a-care-home-if-you-have-a-partner.pdf

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/siteassets/documents/factsheets/fs40_deprivation_of_assets_in_social_care_fcs.pdf

How do you work that out?

Im NMW , 20 hrs, £250 - take home £225 - 10% - and that's my pension payments - I don't pay NI or Tax. Oh I also don't claim any benefits

I cant afford luxury so Im not spending and therefore paying VAT on everything. I buy food in its natural state - vat free, don't eat out unless its a real treat, and take aways are 2 or 3 a year

Clothes are second hand - no vat

The more you spend, the more taxes you pay, don't have it to spend - you pay less in tax

The rich are paying much more then me on tax that's for sure

Mum lives here with us ( self contained ) - aged 86 she's frail, she cant make her bed, do her housework, can no longer cook etc, she's been with us the past 20 years, and SDad was here as well until he died - he was disabled hence them moving in quite young - she needed help with him. MIL was cared for in her own home by her daughters ( she had three so they were able to do turn about )

With the savings mum has made by living here she has paid for a care home annuity - in case she needs it. Might be the case that she's been paying out and it won't be needed ,

DH is also becoming disabled - losing the use of his hands due to dupuytrens.

If mother did get Alzheimers - which looks increasingly unlikely due to her age then yes a care home would be required, but for just getting old, she will be fine here as long as I stay fit

Its not easy having your parents living in the same home as yourself, its something that the whole family has to get on board with and a home that can accommodate without living on top of each other - mum has her own living room, bedroom , bathroom on the ground floor and you do give up loads ( Im 60 and living as an 80 year old )

My wee sister had her FIL in a purpose built annexe to her house when the MIL died and he did get Alzheimers , he was in a gated community prior to that , but they could no longer cope. He went into care last summer. Its costing my sister a fortune in top up fees but the family could no longer cope at home

Staff costs are high even at minimum wage. They need a lot of staff. It's not just carers, it's cleaners, kitchen staff and admin (someone has to order the supplies, arrange the laundry service, pay the bills and wages etc) as well. Heating bills,insurance and premises costs are massive too.

My Mum has just died in a wonderful care home. She had a very meagre lifestyle and worked hard for her house which we sold to fund her care. I feel grateful that we had funds to pay for her care as it gave us control and choices over what happened to her which you don’t get if the local authority is paying. The home was amazing and I don’t think children should expect an inheritance so don’t object as such. However I do hugely object to her fees supporting those that didn’t work and save. In many homes self funders prop up those funded by the local authority who don’t pay the going rate for care. How is that fair?

No ,how long you live for a min of 7 years after the trust was done .

I guess its the knowledge that for a lot of people they look at their kids or grand kids and know that without the money that comes from them after their deaths, the sale of their house and so on that there is little chance that they will ever be able to buy and have the security of their own home. That grandchildren might even struggle to start their own families and live what used to be considered a normal life.

its already true that the bank of mum and dad is one of the biggest factors in determining if you will be able to own your own home and be free of insecure housing where you are at the mercy of someone else.

I know people in their 40's who are still in rented accommodation and essentially wating for their parents to die before they can afford to buy a home. So far its looking as though two of the parents my have to enter into care but they are still living independently at present.

Such a shame that the £80k or so limit couldn't get through Parliament a few years ago. It would have protected at least some of peoples' inheritances, but also reduced the state's liability. It would have meant that fewer people would have taken evasive action to pay nothing, i.e. change ownership of the house or transfer other assets to children, long before care may be needed, meaning the state ends up paying it all. Whereas with a limit like £80k, fewer people would take evasive action - more would just accept it, and pay it, if the time came, safe in the comfortable knowledge that the family would still inherit at least something, rather than risk inheriting nothing.

I've just had a meeting with a family who transferred the mother's house into the joint names of the 3 children around 20 years ago, with the prime intention of avoiding having to use the value of the house to pay care home costs. It's worked - mother is now in a care home, paid by the council, and the 3 children have a house to sell! Because it was transferred so long ago, when there was clearly no "foreseeable" event likely to require a care home, it's not counted when the council evaluated her finances. The 3 children openly admitted had the £80k limit been in place, their mother probably wouldn't have transferred the house to them.

The unfairness is that someone who lives frugally and saves some money has to spend it on care home fees. Someone on exactly the same income who blows it all on fancy clothes, endless cruises, expensive restaurants, new kitchens everytime the fashion changes, gets their care funded by the taxpayer. Fair?

I was fine with my Dad offering up his house to pay. But I did get hacked off with private funders having to pay extra to support the lack of council funds supplied by the council for those who couldn't pay.🙄

Luckily, I got NHS continuing funding care paid, for him, so it ceased to be a problem after a while.

I thought you could not stay living in transferred assets

It's extremely overpriced

Yes, that's much better expressed than my post! I'd like to see all the governments of the world working together to ensure that multinational companies pay a fair whack towards the cost of public services too, but that's never going to happen, certainly not while Putin and Trump are still drawing breath.

My dad’s care cost hundreds of thousands of pounds when I was in my 20s and he had early onset Alzheimer’s. When the fancy hotel style care home decided when he started behaving strangely that he was too much trouble, he was forcefully moved to a “shit” home. The second home was staffed by kind, hard working and attentive staff who kept us up to date with what was happening with him. I myself have a degenerative neurological disease, I am not on benefits of any kind. Whilst I am happy to pay, the fees are too much and I will need it from too early and for too long, I will likely be choosing to make my exit before then. I haven’t been able to earn like my dad did, I don’t want family or strangers money to pay for me, when it could help my children.

Hopefully you'll go quick then. Personally I'd have wanted my parents to have the best care and nicest surroundings rather than a legacy.

As it happened they had shitty deaths in hospital.

I can't believe posters don't think about what could go wrong transferring assets. If it was so simple everyone would do it.

Why wait?

Well here's a scenario - your home and all your savings now belong to your children. They grow up and marry and fall on hard times and their spouses (people you do not know right now) might pressure them into realising their share for the benefit of their new family. Or they might divorce and assessments of assets for alimony purposes will see that you have a stash of cash and act accordingly. It is all fraught with possible problems.