Person going into care home thinks they have avoided selling their house to pay fees?

I have a friend whose mother, now in her late nineties, went into quite a nice care home of her own volition, after living at home and having to go in and out of hospital a few times.

At her request and with her permission her family put her, now empty, house on the market, as everyone could foresee her small amount savings running out.

They got an offer, but it fell through. Meanwhile, she ran out of money, and had an LA assessment. When it came through, it was to offer carers 4 times a day in her own home.

Which had been totally cleared, and was still on the market. Friend explained the situation to the LA, but they were adamant. So DC have been paying the care home fees, and she will pay them back when the house is sold. Which hopefully will happen soon, as the house is now under offer again.

It's been a nightmare for the whole family And none of the DC are well off.

It depends if there is a Trust etc and whose name is on the deeds and if the house is still occupied.

And many with alzheimers don't realise there is anything wrong because they forget all the times they forgot things or got confused and distressed. My mum is like that. As far as she is concerned she is perfectly healthy because she's forgotten the memory clinic appointments and the brain scan that led to her diagnosis. She thinks she manages fine while my siblings and I run around trying to resolve the chaos as she forgets to pay bills for services she's forgotten she used, deal with mouse infestations as she puts food in odd places, locate the source of foul smells when she puts food in random places and forgets it, panics because the heating hasn't come on because she's switched it off and forg she did etc.

In 15+ years of being a social worker I have yet to meet a single person who has taken themselves to Switzerland, or who have offed themselves before going into a care home.

It is human nature to try and survive, and by the time you realise its too late, its too late.

I agree in principle with self funding but think the cap should be higher, eg 100k

Personally I'd rather go to the place in Switzerland if I get to the point of needing a care home and leave some money to my kids

I'm not sure I'd be well enough to appreciate the frills of a private home at that stage.

Depends on which home(s) the LA has a contract with and what the contract says. Does the home already take some LA funded people? That makes it more likely.

We were told with self-funder going into residential care that was expensive that if she did run out they'd 'come to an arrangement' but they also went to some lengths to check she did have quite considerable funding available so they knew it would be fine for years!

I work in HR for a national care home agency

The homes all have a mix of self pay and LA funded residents.

The same staff treat them and my job is to deal with the bad apples from those who don't follow procedures down to out and out neglect.

Many staff are great but I have a caseload of about 20 at a time who are facing disciplinary action.

This is only for 1/3 of our homes

It makes absolutely no difference if the resident is self funded or LA when it comes to how the staff treat them.

Same here. My DF is currently in a nursing home - at a cost of £5k per month and I am very glad that he has the money to fund it.

Exactly re substantial other assets

Surely if you sign away everything to your kids to attempt to prevent yourself paying for your own care in old age you are playing Russian roulette with your future? You've no idea whether your kids would come to see you as a burden and a nuisance in later years, especially if you get dementia. Good care can be extremely expensive and why would you want to gamble on not being looked after properly?

He could have drip fed his money away to family over the years. Or spent it. The rules are well known. He gambled on saving it instead and chose not to.
People with Parkinson's, MS, stroke, osteoporosis, heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis and a whole multitude of ailments and general ageing also pay for their own residential care if they need it. Not just those with dementia.

THIS

i also know if an elderly lady who refused to go into a care home because SHE didn’t want her family home being sold to pay the fees! So she became more and more ill… pretended she was fine at the multiple hospital discharges .etc.. She would have been better off having a lovely last few years being looked after!

What happens if one dies and the other needs to downsize/move to a bungalow/flat but needs more than half the money?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the half destined for the DC is held in trust by the surviving spouse. They could spend it all if they needed to.

What happens if one dies and the other needs to downsize/move to a bungalow/flat but needs more than half the money?

Self funders subsidise LA funded beds significantly. I saw just how much when the LA took over her funding. And not all private homes are profit making businesses. Many of them are run by charities, the British Legion for example.

It isn’t a fair system. Some may argue that it’s morally wrong to try and hive off their DC’s inheritance. But honestly if you saw what you get for your money you’d swallow hard at the thought of all your life’s savings going into it.

My parents became tenants-in-common so even a portion (however tiny) of the value of their house with come to my sibling and I if the house needs to be sold to pay care fees. I don't know exactly how it works, but if Dad dies, for example, that means his half will go to us, his kids. If Mum needs to go in a home, her half can be used to pay care fees but my sibling & I keep the half that was Dad's. If mum doesn't need care fees to be paid then her portion comes to my sibling and me. At least that's how it was explained to me. Maybe someone in the legal profession can put me straight.

minimum wage earners aren't subbing anyone.

You need to be in the top 40% income bracket to stop being a net drain and become a net contributor to the state

Funding for care isn't disease specific.

If someone has cancer and needs care because of it then then they will be financially assessed just like someone with dementia.

However, the difference in that situation is that once someone with cancer is at the stage where they need care they will often be terminally unwell with a rapidly deteriorating health condition which would mean they would probably be eligible for fast track fully funded continuing health care.

Similar someone with really complex needs due to their dementia, such as aggressive behaviour, high falls risk, medication refusal may also be eligible for fully funded continuing health care.

I've no idea how everyone knows how much people in the next room are paying, but as said up thread, hardly anyone will be paying £0, those who are fully funded by the NHS will be regardless of whether they have millions or pennies in the bank

Anyone needing local authority funding who genuinely has nothing but benefits, or those who have somehow manged to dispose of their assets will still be paying something from their pension towards their care.

in effect, paying an extra £10,000 in tax every year.

Yes I was also thinking that.

My dad worked all his life, paid his taxes-decided to buy a house with his money.

Then not only does he have to sell to be cared for (dementia)-he also has to sub someone else!

@MereDintofPandiculation yes probably I'm not a lawyer

My mum needs care , her estate will pay for it .. it is what it is but I'm not a scrounger like a lot of people

I will use her estate in the best way possible to make sure she has the best care for however long that is .

Any misuse of her money at this point is deprivation of assets and I am not going to prison for anyone ✅

I think I'd broadly agree with that. It's not that you're paying for your living costs, it's that you're paying for a level of care that you cannot afford out of your income (that is possibly several times your income), and that your requirement is because of acquiring the "wrong" disease. And of course that you're contributing to someone else's funding as well - in effect, paying an extra £10,000 in tax every year.

The 7 years is irrelevant. Are you getting confused with the 7 years survival before a gift is regard as not art of your estate for inheritance tax purposes?