Row with DH re elderly care home

[tiredsotired81]

Husband and I have had a row just now. My elderly father is in a care home with dementia and immobility issues. My parents had quite a bit of savings so they are paying for a private care home. Not the most expensive one in the area but not the cheapest. Obviously their savings will be disappearing each month while mum lives in their home still. Always a horrible situation.

DH has started going on about how people should manage their finances better and if it was him he would give all his savings to our DC and then have no savings of his own, and let the council pay for his care (if needed). I pointed out the quality of his care would then likely be miserable. He asked whether a more expensive home really made a difference to the quality of my father's life given all he does is sit in a chair all day and could do that anywhere.

I lost my cool trying to argue the point with his that it's not that simple or straightforward and he was sounding very naive not to mention unkind and cruel.

He sounds pretty thick. You can’t just give your money away. It’s deprivation of assets and they’ll come after it and you still have to pay. Really… deeply stupid person.

People have savings to cater for just such an eventuality. It's only right that those who can afford to pay for care should do so, leaving state welfare to pick up the tab for those less fortunate. Your DH is being a selfish prick.

That's not my experience at all.

Private homes have a lower staff turnover and that's the most important thing. The staff need to be happy in their jobs.

My grandma went into a council run home, that was free for those with no assets/savings, or a cheap fee for those who do. She hated it there, she moved less than a year later to a private expensive one. She much preferred the private home. She likened it to a home with ex council estate people vs ex private home owners. All I know is the staff, decor, bedrooms, grounds and meals were much nicer. The private home hosted many activities from outside companies, the free home didnt have any, except a pile of board games/dominoes/cards in the corner. Free isn't necessarily better. Best to enjoy your last few years in comfort. I believe the council look though your past finances, and question if money's been funnelled else where.

Again - get a financial assessment from the local authority.

Once a persons savings and assets drop down to around £24k the Local Authority expect you to get in touch with them to arrange a financial assessment and a Care Act Assessment (if the person already hasn't had either).

If the Local Authority agree at this point that the person meets the eligibility criteria (most people already in care will) and that the funds have dropped to the required level then they will take over the contract with the Care Home at local authority rates and the Local Authority will then bill the person for their assessed contribution. Their assessed contribution will depend what their income from pensions etc is and may be nearly the whole amount or just part of the amount. Even if they are still paying the whole amount it will be at a cheaper rate than they were paying privately.

If the care home charges more than local authority rates then someone else (family) might be asked if they can top up the difference, if they can't the person may need to move to a care home that does accept local authority rates or the local authority may negotiate with the care home for them to stay.

Whatever happens it should be the case that every last penny is spent on care.

That should read SHOULDN'T be the case that every last penny is spent on care. I was too late to edit the post.

That’s unnecessarily insulting, not least because the OP has noted he he apologised.

I think there should be middle ground instead of zero funding if you have money

my mum and dad worked worked and worked didn’t have a lavish lifestyle saved instead of spending and a massive chunk of savings went on care

there friends earned way more he was self employed and a lot of cash in hand
honestly they lived like kings cars holidays top range stuff in house
equity release on house which again they burnt through and they got everything funded as no cash left they’d spent the lot

So why save for something you can get funded spend spend spend

and from experience paying more isn’t always better for care

What an ugly ugly ugly comment. Tell your husband you look forward to making sure he’s living in a cheap care home when he’s near the end of his life so you can spend more money on yourself after getting your kids to hold on to it for you. Holidays for everyone. I hope he likes inedible food and inattentive staff.

That isn't how my mum interprets the situation. In her view, dementia, alzheimers etc is a medical condition. It was not as specific a statement as it should have been.

I know it was a different world then. It is all very different now.

misszebra he probably gets free prescriptions, heating allowance, non means tested attendance allowance, reduced council tax, the triple lock on pension, subsidised this and that etc etc.
That's a decent enough 'something' for his contribution.
Fully funded state care for everyone including those with hundreds of thousands in the bank (and there are plenty) at others' expense is not feasible.

Dementia is a medical condition.

But bed, food, electricity, activities etc are not medical care.

Towards the end of his life, my dad moved into the nursing side of his dementia care home. The fees stayed the same because the nursing element is reclaimable from the NHS if various criteria are met. But his bed and board still needed to be paid.

I am a bit in the middle on this. My parents downsized massively to a small flat from family home. They have each of their children a decent amount of money to help us pay off a chunk of mortgage. We have literally just passed the 7 year mark and both still fit and healthy. They still have some savings and the flat if needed and if both manage without a care home, anything remaining will be divided between the grandchildren. Personally, our plan would be to do the same, or our kids will never be able to afford to get on housing ladder. When they all have jobs of their own, we would downsize and give them all some money to help with a house. Maybe £30.000 each. This will be at a time in life they need it, as opposed to when they are retiring and have struggled through the most expensive years of life.

The seven year rule only applies to inheritance. Deprivation of assets can go back further, however if the money was passed on whilst the giver was in good general health and not in need of additional care (or facing it) then it isn't deprivation of assets.

Pass it on earlier if you have the means and the inclination. However I would have preferred to see one of the previously touted options around an insurance model or similar cap (both May and Blair/Brown posited models for this) which strikes a balance. Neither were popular with the public so we stay with care home costs roulette.

I agree that government need to take bull by the horns and make a long term plan as our hospitals are being crippled by parents awaiting placement and care packages that are not available/ affordable and if social care was properly funded and sorted, or hospitals would function so much better. Not saying it is only issue in NHS but had a huge impact on bed availability and that impacts A&E waiting times etc.

Well if we go off your ideas, we won't allow anyone to ever receive any benefit or support from our government unless they've worked enough and paid enough taxes for your liking. one rule for one another rule for another doesn't work and isn't fair.

I didn't offer any ideas - just saying how it is currently. There isn't enough money to offer free Nursing home care to everyone that wants it as well as free NHS, education, etc. So tough decision will have to be made but currently politicians seem to be burying their heads in the sand over the impending social care crisis.

My elderly uncle has dementia and is in a very nice privately funded and horrendously expensive care home. I think his savings should allow him to be there for maximum two years, after that he would need to be in a state funded care home. The difference is huge! I am torn between hoping he dies before that has to happen and wanting him to stay alive a bit longer. He is so very confused - I don't want him to be upset by a move to somewhere that is nowhere near as nice. Several years ago I was named in his will as a main beneficiary, I think that has probably changed now but in any case there won't be anything left. I don't mind - I just want him to be a comfortable as he can be and hope that his money lasts for his lifetime.

It's a grim situation all round and I can see both sides.

Personally, I'd feel sick if every penny of my house/bank account was used on care home fees if I had dementia. I would far rather die and my kids have the money. Perhaps that's what your dh feels like.

I wouldn't hold it against him. And would point out that you can get shit care at any type of care home - it's just luck. There's one near me that was in the paper for abusing dementia patients.

Basically the situation sucks and you have to get through it the best you can.

I am a bit in the middle on this. My parents downsized massively to a small flat from family home. They have each of their children a decent amount of money to help us pay off a chunk of mortgage. We have literally just passed the 7 year mark and both still fit and healthy

You are confusing inheritance tax with deprivation of assets.

I'd feel sick if every penny of my house/bank account was used on care home fees if I had dementia

I’ve spent a lot of time preparing for exactly that. My mum’s family is riddled with it. If our kids get any money it’s a bonus.

I would say that OP's dad's existence is miserable anyway. I know my PILs wanted their GC to have their life savings (ie their bungalow proceeds) rather than it being spent on care because they told me. They didn't end up in care. But they would have been appalled at their frugal life savings being drained to care for them if they got dementia. As it happened, they got cancer.
I don't think OP's dh is a monster or a grabby fucker.
I'd want my stuff to go to my kids and their families, not be spent on care.

Legally there's no set number of years cut-off for deprivation of assets, unlike IHT.

However if they're both still fit and healthy seven years after the gift it would be very difficult in practice for a council to recoup the money if one of them does have a stroke and need to go into a care home tomorrow.

Apart from anything else, if the parents shredded their bank statements after seven years would the council be able to demand the details to go back further? (Genuine question to which I don't know the answer).

@tiredsotired81 well now you know two very useful things about your husband

1. he doesn’t mind if he has poor care when he’s old or sick
2. he won’t bother to fight for you to get good care when you are old or sick

So now you can plan your future accordingly. You will need legal advice .

Does he hold power of attorney for you? Id so I’d think about changing it.

is there any way you can put aside some of your pension or savings away for your old age , somewhere he can’t touch it? Maybe in a trust?

I think so. Most people’s bank statements aren’t hard copy any more and money in excess of £23k wouldn’t be easy to hide. I honestly don’t understand why people care what happens to their money after they’re dead.