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

It does. 7 years is the timeframe.

I believe there are rules as to this. I think 7 years must elapse before the house is no longer considered for care home fees. I also think there were some new rules whereby the people in whose name the house was put must pay rent to the previous owner and show that they have paid rent. No doubt sneaky people can get round this somehow.

I do think it is unfair when nearly all of a house's value can be taken to pay for care fees. I think it would be much fairer if every property over a certain value was liable for a small percentage to be be paid into a government account ring-fenced exclusively for care fees. I would be quite happy with this system - even if I never needed to receive residential care, I would just be grateful for that. People make such a fuss about inheritance tax (even when the vast majority of estates are not valuable enough to attract inheritance tax) and yet they seem to be less incensed about this very unfair system.

It's also worth knowing about NHS Continuing Healthcare. Many people with dementia qualify for this, as well as people with lots of other conditions such as strokes etc. It can be quite hard to get, but it is always worth appealing if your relative/friend gets turned down initially. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/money-work-and-benefits/nhs-continuing-healthcare/

Again, the difference in price between frills and no frills is not massive compared to the baseline cost of care. Of course, if adds up, but where you are in the country probably has the biggest impact on weekly rates.

This is why I'd rather do anything than give all my money to a care home when I may well be too ill to know where I am or enjoy any frills.

“I don't want to derail this thread but the idea that all those who don't own their own home haven't worked hard is ridiculous.”

agree @EmmaGrundyForPM

I don't want to derail this thread but the idea that all those who don't own their own home haven't worked hard is ridiculous.

Near me, a new estate has just been built, very ordinary, where the cheapest property is a studio flat for £350k. Two bedroom terraced houses start at £550k. House ownership is impossible for those on low wages no matter how hard they work.

The snobbery and selfishness on this thread is staggering.

But still

No one gets it for free, I believe. At the very least, whatever pension is received is contributed towards fees

Oh wow. Happy to see those carers dumped in their old age having worked their socks off caring for you and paying towards your care. What a nice person!

And how is that my problem?

You do realise a lot of people work hard but for low wages that mean they don't build up.assets. Those carers, for example, will need to pay more tax so you can have a lot of money when you are dead.

I’m sure greater minds than mine have considered this, but to overcome the regional difference in house prices could a percentage of its value be used as the cap rather than a flat amount. Tbh it’s academic though as Boris’s oven ready idea has been kicked into the long grass and I expect it won’t reappear for a long time regardless of who is in power. I do feel a bit aggrieved that having worked hard all our lives my children could only be left with £23,500 between them.

Me too.

At old age why waste hundreds of thousands of money which will be gone in 2 years on my care. I’m almost dying at that point, sick and ill - I’d rather die peacefully and give my children the shares of the house equally which can be used as house deposits or whatever.

I don’t think it’s fair for people who have worked hard to get a home to then pay for their own care fees, whereas people who haven’t get it for free!

Also rich people avoid paying tax all the time so couldn’t care less

My elderly aunt self funds and pays £1000 a month more than LA funded residents. The LA secures care at a lower rate because of their buying power but this is how the homes make up the shortfall. In the three years she’s been in care she’s subsidised others to the tune of £36,000, meaning she will run out of funding that much sooner and be at the mercy of the LA, which includes moving her to a different care home if no LA funded places are available when her funding pot runs dry.

If you want to leave an inheritance and your house is close to or over the IHT limit, far better to sell ypur home or release equity to cover care fees than to use a personal pension.
Pensions don’t count towards IHT ( unless over the lifetime allowancce of £1 million and can be inherited tax free at the monent if you die before 75.
After 75, you pay tax on the income or you can pass it on tax free etc. etc.

My cousin and his wife have put their home in trust with their two DC being the trustees. It is tied up so tightly that they aren't allowed to be evicted. The house can only be sold once they are both either in a care home or are deceased.

A friend of mine has recently put her home in trust with her DD being the trustee. She had to write a very lengthy statement to say why she was doing this so that it couldn't be described as 'deprivation of assets'. Her reason was that she was estranged from her eldest DC (half-sibling to DD) and she absolutely did not want him to benefit from the sale of the house once she had passed. Instead of doing this, personally, I would have just attached the same statement to a Will (my DP has done this) and it would have been a fraction of the cost of setting up a trust! Providing the statement is strong enough, if the Will is contested, the judge will usually go with the wishes of the deceased.

I dispute the “suck at the taxpayer teat” language, but it absolutely is reasonable to build a care home with the assumption that some residents will be partly or fully funded by the LA. Why is that unreasonable?

Axa, for example, will have à reimbursement rate with private healthcare consultants that is lower than the self pay rate. Discounts for purchasing power is not unusual.

Of course there is an economy of scale from the LAs perspective. It's the same with, say, hotel rooms. Government rates are much cheaper than the rate an individual will pay for entirely the same service due to their regular and repeated purchase.

The homes could always refuse the business and attract private individuals at what they claim the 'real' rate is couldn't they? Got to wonder if their business plan has a major flaw in that they believed their shareholders could suck greedily on the taxpayer teat for the easiest profit ever.

I applaud councils' desire to obtain the best price they can for the services they require, subject of course to quality control.

Traditionally people bought houses for security. They knew homes might be sold for care.

The way house prices are going and out of step with salary increases, I'd certainly be wanting to leave money to buy property to my children.

I'd rather go to a LA care home than a private one if it meant I could do that but of course if I knew I'd need care it would rightly be seen as deprivation of assets so I don't know what the solution is, other than downsize when the kids are independent and before I get old enough to need care.

Surely most of us buy a house for security, not because we want to leave something for our children. I’m wondering whether there’s a generation gap. My father, growing up in the Depression, with no NHS, saved for his children and grandchildren. Most people on this thread, used to elderly relatives being effectively treated for heart problems and even cancer, and surviving into a long drawn out dementia, save for their own care.

More sad news for mumsnetters .... Plenty of people devote a lot of time and money to adjust their earnings in order to pay as little as possible in tax. In fact, the more people have, the more effort they devote to keeping it.