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

When we were looking for mum earlier this year the most expensive were £1400. One had really nice rooms with a good variety of activities and staff who clearly had a good relationship with the residents. Another at the same price really was God's waiting room with minimum dull activities where mum would have been bored stiff.
In the end mum decided she isn't ready for a home yet. Supported accommodation isn't an option as they won't take someone who already has a dementia diagnosis so she's still.at home complaining of loneliness.

No wonder people don't want to pay care fees £1750 week a rip off, no wonder care homes owners are rich.

But this poster is correct in that there is no obligation for the person continuing to live in the home to pay rent. You’re thinking of the seven year rule for inheritance tax, which is a different thing. Doesn’t apply to care.

The only situation I’ve come across where the proceeds didn’t go to the home was the parent moving in to their adult child’s home to be cared for (dementia), the property being sold, proceeds going to the adult child and then a couple of years later the parent went in to a home for free. I don’t know the details though of how the proceeds were passed to the adult child.

Yes, you can. If you have no health problems at the time, and therefore no expectation of needing care, at the time the home is transferred, then it’s not deprivation of assets. It’s up to the LA to prove otherwise.

Yes I really do think that, because there are clear legal rules defining both of these different things.

I know many mumsnetters have a massive issue with the gap between 'should' and 'is' and expect some kind of moral judgement to be applied, but that isn't how the law works.

Nope. They do a financial assessment.

The point is that the person in question has not moved into his son's house but is still living in his original home with his partner.

Do you really imagine that the same rules can't apply? If you haven't really given your house away (which is obvious as you and your partner are living in it) that you can evade paying for care?

I know you really want this to be true, but again it really isn't.

are you thinking now that people can't have elderly relatives living with them unless they ask them to pay rent?

I think you're actually thinking about the rules around inheritance tax, and giving away an asset but continuing to benefit from it.

Social worker here that deals with this another.

1. If the partner is above 55 and was the full time carer and living in the house you can ask fir a disregard of the property. He has to remain living in the house until the owner dies.
2. Local authority will always look at the transfer of a property with suspension. Especially if the person already had care needs and known to social services at the time the property transferred. It is for the Local authority to prove that they intentionally transferred the property to avoid selling it. This is difficult and a lot of people do get away with it.

Yes, even if you give the house away, if you are still living in it you may still be considered to actually own it.

This is one of the best posts on this thread, in my view. I’m bracing myself for the fact that my parents could similarly use all of their assets (which are modest) to pay for care, not that there is any indication yet that they need it. So your sensible words hit home with me.

By contrast, slightly shocked at the number of people who seem intent on dodging the system, when “getting away with it” means cheating the public purse and consigning a loved one to the poorest level of care.

people who are funded by the local authority still get a choice though - of the options the LA will fund which is usually quite a varied choice

This might have been answered already-apologies if so, I did have a look but couldn’t find it ~

If a couple are married but the mortgage is only in one person’s name and that person has to go into care, does their spouse get to stay in the house? Would they need their name on the mortgage to ensure the house isn’t sold from under them?

If the house is in his son's name they will check to see if he is paying his son rent for living there. If he hasn't been doing this he probably won't be considered to have actually given it to his son. They're not stupid!

My mother gave her house to me and my sibling when she remarried so that we would inherit rather than it being divided with step sibs. Step dad sold his home when they married and gave step sibs some of the proceeds then, spent the rest himself. We fully expect that we might have to use Mum’s property if she needs a care home. Transfer wasn’t done to avoid care fees, but because it was her house with my dad and she wanted us to inherit it. Tbh I think it’s a bit iffy morally to try ruses like this to avoid care home fees. It means taxpayers, including relatively badly off ones with no hope of owning a home or ever inheriting, will have to pay care fees for people with assets, sometimes substantial assets, who could afford to pay their own. Local authorities are really strapped for cash so the more people cheat the system the more pressure they are under and services come under threat. I know people want to inherit and leave legacies and the current system can be seen as penalising the thrifty. Difficult one.

He may have if there is someone in his house over the age of 60 that lives there. Otherwise no they may have to.

The rules are completely clear.

There's no reason to think, if you are fit and healthy, that you will need care. And that's an end to it.

The LA needs to prove that you had a reasonable expectation of needing care and so deliberately gave away your assets to avoid paying for it. Being 70 is not 'a reasonable expectation of needing care'.

Anyone who thinks a LA won’t go after someone who gave away/ put their home in trust when in their 60’s or 70’s is a fool.
You would need a very good reason to have done so.
Even married couples going Tenants in Common with their house to ‘save’ half the property are playing a very dangerous game for whoever dies last and their beneficiaries.

If they are fit and well and have no expectation of needing care then it doesn't matter how old they are or how much they give away. It doesn't matter if they are working or not.

There isn't a special moral code to this.

I used to do housekeeping in a care home with about 20 residents. I was amazed at the number of staff to keep such a small place going. each day 3 housekeepers 2 to clean and 1 in the laundry. 2 maintenance guys. 1 cook. 1 manager. 1 bookkeeper/ admin person ( she worked part time) 1-2 physios 6 carers plus a senior carer who mainly managed everyone else/ oversaw the dining room. Plus another 4 carers on night shift. Obviously people don’t work every day so even as a small home they had over 30 employees.

£10.41 per hour is pretty good - when you consider minimum wage is almost the same figure and care homes (and other minimum wage employers) are struggling to recruit.

Considering the number of carers required (mine needs two at least with her for anything now), plus kitchen staff providing food for all meals and snacks, loads of laundry every day, high heating costs, building and grounds maintenance.

You still pay nursery/childminder even if your child spends three hours a day having a nap! The point is that you're paying for someone to be there to answer the falls alarm in the middle of the night, call an ambulance, deal with trips to the loo or wet beds or whatever. Staffing levels will be a lot lower overnight but they still need people working then.

I think it depends on the amount and the intention. A £20k gift towards a house deposit when the child is 30 and the parent 60 and still working is a very different situation to signing over a £300k house at the age of 70, even if the 70 year old is fit and well at the time.