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

Just get the prescription but don’t take them? Wasteful, I know, but if they’re backing you into a corner like that . . .

People don't like the perceived unfairness. So if you work hard, buy your house and have assets you pay. If you don't have assets you don't pay. Private or self payers in effect subsidise people paid for by the local authority because there isn't enough money in local authorities to pay more. It's a shit system but no government will take on the reform of it. It's too huge a task.

I think people get pissed off when they see feckless Doris down the road, who spent her dotage living with her children and going on cruises, having to pay not a penny whilst they pay thousands for the same care home as they have been sensible with savings. This is what happened to our family.

There needs to be compulsory savings for care (a bit like the workplace pension) which is paid into all your life. If you don’t need care, then the family get it.

I think the poster is referring to the lack of an effective taxation system on the assets of the wealthy (by which I mean those with assets in excess of £10 million). Work is heavily taxed, as you refer to, but wealth isn't. That seems to be the crux of the problem, meaning that the wealthy accrue ever more assets and the workers pay more and more tax and suffer declining living standards because they cannot compete with the wealthy for the assets, which increase in price.

I think we need to tax wealth. Society will become more and more unequal unless we do.

In the UK, care home fees can be substantial, often depleting an individual’s assets over time. While there are legal ways to reduce or avoid care home fees, these must be approached carefully to avoid accusations of deliberate deprivation of assets. Below are some legitimate methods available to the general public:

NHS Continuing Healthcare (NHS CHC)

• If a person’s primary need for care is due to a significant health condition, they may be eligible for NHS Continuing Healthcare, which covers care costs in full.
• Eligibility is determined through an assessment by the NHS, based on the severity and complexity of the individual’s health needs.

Local Authority Funding

• If a person’s assets (including savings and property) fall below £23,250 in England (£50,000 in Wales, £32,750 in Scotland, and £23,250 in Northern Ireland), they may qualify for local authority funding.
• A means test determines how much financial support the local authority will provide.
• Certain assets, such as a main home, may be disregarded under specific circumstances (e.g., if a spouse or dependent relative still lives there).

Property Disregard Rules

• A person’s home is not counted in the means test if:
• A spouse, partner, or dependent relative (e.g., a disabled child) continues to live there.
• They are in temporary care and intend to return home.
• This can help preserve the property for family members rather than it being used to fund care fees.

Deferred Payment Agreements (DPA)

• If a person owns a home but cannot afford care fees, they may be eligible for a Deferred Payment Agreement with the local council.
• This allows them to delay selling their home by borrowing against its value, with the council recovering costs from the estate after death.
• This is not an avoidance strategy but can delay financial hardship.

Gifting Assets (With Caution)

• Some individuals consider transferring property or assets to family members to reduce their wealth before needing care.
• However, if a local authority believes this was done deliberately to avoid care costs, it may count the value of the gifted assets in the means test ("deliberate deprivation of assets" rule).
• Gifts made well in advance (e.g., many years before requiring care) may be less likely to be challenged.

Trusts for Asset Protection

• Placing assets (such as property) into an irrevocable trust may protect them from being included in means testing.
• However, this must be done for legitimate estate planning reasons, not solely to avoid care costs, as local authorities can investigate the timing and intent of the transfer.
• Discretionary trusts, where control of the assets is handed over to trustees, are a common tool but must be set up well in advance.

Joint Ownership of Property

• If a home is jointly owned as tenants in common, rather than as joint tenants, each owner has a distinct share.
• This can prevent the full value of the property from being assessed when one partner moves into care, as their share may not be automatically transferred to the other owner.

Lifetime Annuities

• Some individuals purchase a care fees annuity, which provides a guaranteed income to cover care costs, reducing the risk of depleting assets.
• This can be a financial planning tool for those with sufficient assets who want to ensure predictable care payments.

Using Income Rather than Assets

• Some people use their pension income, rental income, or savings interest to cover care costs rather than selling property or assets.

Family Care and Alternatives to Care Homes

• If family members can provide care at home, this can avoid or delay the need for a care home.
• Live-in carers or home adaptations (e.g., stairlifts, mobility aids) can also be cost-effective alternatives.

What happens if an adult child is still living at home with their parents as they can't afford to move out? My cousin and her two kids live with her parents and I can't see her ever moving out, will she have to sell their house to pay for their fees if needed?

I have no idea of her financial circumstances but I have always wondered.and don't dare ask her!

I'm not 50+ and still have teenage kids. Moved out of home because my parents were not pleasant to live with and I have never been able to scrape together a deposit. Parents aren't wealthy either so it's not like they could ever help out. And house prices have just continually moved further out of reach. People forced out of London by housing costs have moved into my area in large numbers, causing housing prices to go nuts here as well. So it's been neverending. I always thought if I worked hard and was sensible with money I would get there sooner or later, but the prices just go up too fast

Like what?

I would certainly be happy to see some of my taxes going to fund HMRC so they can tackle the problem of tax evasion from higher earners.

You mean like the top 1% of earners who already pay 29% of all income tax? 🤔

Yes. Both terrible illnesses that can go on for years. The only difference is that funding dementia care strikes those in charge as too impossibly expensive to contemplate - never mind that it's necessary.

If you jointly own a home with someone then the council will only consider your half of rhe house for funding purposes.

Unless that person is your partner/spouse or over the age of 65 and habitually living in the property then the house will be sold for your half of the cash and they will get their half of the cash from the property sale.

The downside is that if they get married and get divorced, or get taken to court for debts, or plain just decide they want their half of the money out now then they are legally the other owner of the property and could force you to sell your home to pay them/their ex spouse the money from the property.

How?

So what's your solution?

in a sense no different than asking about tax etc if its legal to do then some will want advice to do

If every single homeowner needed to sell the home to pay for end of life care, and nobody ever inherited anything, it probably wouldn't be an issue (although people would still moan about those who for various reasons never became homeowners). The reason people are unhappy about this is because by sheer bad luck a small minority will need end of life care and spend their entire life savings and house proceeds on it. Meanwhile, the children of those who don't need it will inherit the full amount and in almost all cases pay no inheritance tax on it. That's what's inequitable.

They charge you for the cost of your care and take you to court if you don't pay it.

They put a charge on the asset you disposed of and claim it with interest when it's sold.

"The deliberate deprivation of assets is a criminal offence, although local authorities are unlikely in practice to take action through the criminal courts. They are much more likely to enter into discussions and attempt to recover the assets, or refuse to continue paying for the care. As a last resort, local authorities may apply for a county court judgement against someone accused of deliberate deprivation of assets".

LA funding gets tighter compared to the costs of their Statutory Functions ...

If there was a 'blip', then by definition it's not the way it's always been. And even if it always was that way, that doesn't mean it should continue to be that way. There is too much wealth inequality in our society, and the way to address that is to effectively tax the wealthy (who I consider to be those with assets in excess of £10 million). Once we have effective wealth redistribution, we will have a functioning society again.

We need to ask ourselves what kind of society we want to live in, for ourselves and our children. Do we want an inheritocracy, where all that matters is what you inherit, and a society that is increasingly geared up to the exclusive service of the princelings who inherit, or do we want a meritocracy, where things are fairer? I accept there will never be a utopia, but I don't accept we have to continue on this path.

If the council can prove deprivation of assets then they will bill you for the care as if you still had the assets to sell/pay for it.

If you don't pay they take you to court and put a charge on e.g. the property they can prove was given away so that when it's sold they get their bit with interest first.

I'm involved with two such cases at the moment. It's not particularly rare.

Genuine question: Why didn't you buy and chose to rent instead?
I know it's difficult to get into home ownership now, but if you are discussing retirement, I assume you are 50+? If you are (forgive me if you aren't), our generation could buy homes a lot more easily than today;s youngsters. I don't know anyone who rented really - 5% deposits and mortgages lower than rent costs made buying a much more attractive option than it is now.
It's no use being bitter about 'lining landlords' pockets' if you made an active choice to do so.
Of course, you may be under 35, in which case ignore my question!
.

Yes, used to be, back in the day. GPs surgeries used to generate significant profits for partners too. IME, all not so much now,

Completely agree. The poorest pay most tax, proportionate to their income, whilst those rich enough not to work pay virtually no tax on their wealth. And we wonder why there's no money for schools, hospitals, infrastructure and social housing, whilst fighting over the crumbs.

It certainly used to be. I have met a couple of people who made their fortune out of the private care home 'racket' in the 1990s. Talking to one of them was quite a revelation.

I'm sure that's who PizzaPowder meant to refer to. My point was that this group who are not currently in work are being demonised as all take and no give, but nobody gets away with putting nothing back because of VAT. A great many of those who don't work are living with chronic disability and ill health and a lot of them will be carers. Some of them could work if they had the right sort of support and very understanding employers. We as a society haven't made that possible. Yes, there are some scroungers who could work and don't. Their numbers are greatly exaggerated to divert attention from those who are also defrauding the rest of us by not paying their fair share of tax.

Oh please!
Those stuck in shitty rentals probably paid more than you did monthly. Why should their taxes fund your kids' inheritance and your care home fees?