To think it would benefit my 2 sons if their grandad's house didn't have to be sold in the future for care home fees

[supersec]

We have 2 sons (aged 16 and 18). Everyone knows about the dire prospects of any teenagers today ever getting on the property ladder. My sons have always been close to their paternal grandparents. Grandmother died 4 years ago after having Alzheimer's for 7 years. She ended up in a home for last 6 months as my father in law looked after her at home.

He is now 81 and has been diagnosed with dementia. We own our house outright. My husband has one brother who is married, nearly 5o with no children. He owns 2 houses outright, one which he rents out.

We save extremely hard for our future and hopefully house deposits for our sons but the outlook is very bleak from reading the papers/watching the news and I find the outlook for their future very depressing - will they be living with us until they are 40

After the diagnosis my brother in law said he thought it would be a good idea to get his dad's bank balance down as he has nearly £90,000 in the bank. He and my husband withdrew £3,000 each a few months ago with my father in law's approval But I think it is too late for this to make any difference to any possible future care needs. Even if it was reduced to under £23,000 which I understand is the threshold limit for contributing towards your care, the care home would say the house had to be sold.

I am sure my father in law would like to see his only grandchildren live in the house when he passes away, rather than it being sold for care home fees. My brother in law has no children to worry about, has a brilliant final salary pension and a very large bank balance.

I don't know why he came up with the idea to start reducing the bank balance when it will make no difference to his dad having to fund his care if the time comes. No more money has been withdrawn yet but my husband is burying his head in the sand over this and is just agreeing with his older brother.

I do not want a penny from any estate, I would just love to see our sons get a helping hand for the future but this would be via us as the will is 50/50 between my husband and his brother.

I am a very positive person and don't get depressed about much but I feel utter despair at the housing prospects for today's teenagers.

Please tell me if I am being out of order .

Again, do you have any idea of how much specialist care costs?! It doesn't seem like you do, so maybe not spouting rubbish on this thread would be a good idea.

Wait Back I misread the post my previous comment was directed at. I apologise.

It would actually be quite helpful for someone to come in with some facts, the costs that other posters have written about clearly aren't factual enough.

MrsJay

I also want to retire in Florida, wear a pink velour track suit and drink margaritas.

I hope my DCs don't see that as me frittering away their inheritance.

My mothers care home cost £550 a week. That's the ball park going rate around here. (£450- £600)

The council pays between £450 and £550 depending on level of care required.

NMW is £6.31 p/h. Some people need 24 hour care on 1 to 1 basis. This costs £1060.08 per week alone. This is not the true cost because it is likely that a person will need 2 people for personal care but it's a ballpark figure.

My mum's Nursing home cost £565 – £815. Not sure what the difference entailed. Mum had to pay all but £21 of her pension towards the cost.

Not everyone who can't afford their own are home fees has not worked hard or lived on benefits or spent it all on luxuries. Some people worked very hard in low paid jobs but were still never able to afford to buy their own home or accumulate savings.

Do not start emptying a man with dementia's bank account, you are leaving yourself wide open to accusations of financial abuse. The local authority will ask for that money back form you if he needs care and if you have spent it they can put a charge on your property to reclaim the money when you sell.

Rightly or wrongly, this is the system we live in. There is an ageing population and the welfare state is stretched to the point of imploding. If it were me I would be grateful that he is in a position to afford to pay for the care h may need, not just the basic level the state will fund - yes there is a BIG difference.

Sorry, didn't read all the thread. I'm a social worker and deal with this daily. I've also had a shit day and taken lots of abuse from a family member with similar ideas to the op (although i'm sure the op is not as bad as this woman!)

"I do know that when my husband and I are in our sixties we will get our house and finances sorted out to avoid the possible prospect of the house being sold to fund care. Of course I would want any grandchildren/children the have the money"

That is deprivation of assets, and that particular loophole closed years ago.

Those that can afford to pay should.

Where are all the 3k's now, has the OP said?

MiL's care home (for respite) cost £700 per week, that was in the middle of a range of costs (for the same home) based on her needs (as your needs go up, so do the costs). Because she needed nursing care ~£110 a week was covered by some allowance.

We pay £770 per week for a live in carer, but she needs 2hr break a day which we cover 4 days a week and an agency covers 3x per week at a cost of ~£12/hr. There is no nursing care allowance, as you only get that if you are in a care home. So care at home costs more, but broadly similar if you dont qualify for the nursing care allowance and are able minded/bodied enough to not require supervision for 2hours a day.

Just recently, she has lost her mobility, so now needs a visit 4x per day to help the carer hoist her about (2 person job). This is funded for a short time after discharge from hospital, so I don't yet know how much it will cost, but it wont be cheap.

it isnt deprivation of assets if you live long enough afterwards without going into care
i will also get rid of most of my money and assets when i retire.

It's well worth getting legal and financial advice. There are things you can do that are well within the realms of the law as it currently stands (although it's about to change).

One thing I will say is how glad I am that my FIL was able to fund his own care. The family looked at over 20 local care homes trying to find the best to meet his needs as he had vascular dementia. He COULD have gone into a home and privately funded when social services funded others to be in the same place, however the local authority homes weren't a patch in the final 2 choices.

We were able to choose a place with a wonderful feel, specialising in dementia care and a very low staff turnover thanks to him being privately funded and I'm so grateful because his remaining 2 years were the best they could have been for him.

Even if we could have legally ring fenced all his money, it wouldn't have been right as that would have taken away the ability for him to fund the best home for his needs and we'd never have allowed that to happen.

sanfairy The LA can look back as far as they want. There are no time limits on how far a local authority can go back when considering deprivation of asset.

After my Father died my mother lived alone for a while, then following a stroke she had to go into a care home. She had been in hospital for a month following the stroke when my sister and I were told to find a home for her as she had to leave hospital.
At that stage she could do nothing for herself; she was fed thickened fluids and pureed food. She did not recognise us most days, and when she did realise who we were, she asked why we were not at school, and kept asking us to make tea for Dad, who was dead. She could not move herself in bed, or get out of bed, or even sit up when propped.
I give details because we were told she would have to pay for the care home fees. She pays £850 a week and it is going up £40 a week this month. When we queried this decision, we were told she did not qualify for funding as he needs were not great enough.
Many people in her lovely care home are state funded; the files in the office are labelled accordingly.
A friend whose mother is in a similar position tells me that her mother is state funded as she has no savings and live3d in a council house; yes they top up - £20 a week between five children. My mother's house has been sold to pay for her care.

"The timing of the disposal should be taken into account when considering the purpose of the disposal. It would be unreasonable to decide that a resident had disposed of an asset in order to reduce his charge for accommodation when the disposal took place at a time when he was fit and healthy and could not have foreseen the need for a move to residential accommodation."

I appreciate your concern for your sons' future in terms of affordable housing but the current legislation states that if a house is not occupied by spouse or dependent of care home resident then the state can place a charge upon the house so that when it is sold they get the fees back. It is the law. Other kinds of assets are the same eg stocks and shares , works of art, cars.

It sounds tough but this is the rainy day. It's a bit like trying to avoid inheritance tax or any other kind of tax. If you disagree, campaign against the community care legislation to get it changed?

They can look back as far as they want to consider motive for disposal of assets. But they have to use reasonable judgement. You could easily get local govt ombudsman to overturn a stupid decision by LA.

Here in the US, giving away money, property, etc., in order to reduce your assets to become eligible for state-paid long-term care is considered fraud. The look-back period is 60 months. Any transfer of cash or of assets for less than fair market value would be considered an improper resource transfer.

Is long-term care insurance available in the UK?

My Grand mother has recently (5 weeks ago) passed away with dementia & owned her house outright.

The care/nursing home that my family selected was £1100 per month. You cannot get the same care free.

The decision at the time (a few years ago) was to rent out her house to pay the care home fees, then the house would be sold at the time of her death. House is currently on the market.

Can you not do the same thing?

Here too. It's tough when people have assumed they'd hand down the house but the value of the house usually represents far more than what has been spent on it and is a bloody good return on capital investment - so it's 'free' money and should be used to pay for care, given current legislation. If I need care I won't mind my house being used. If my dad who is on basic benefits needs care then he should get it even though he has no money. We are a bloody rich country. If you have money use it if you don't then my taxes help support you. Why is this a problem? Try the USA if you want unfair.

Ahhh, £1100 per week not month sorry

If you have money use it if you don't then my taxes help support you. Why is this a problem?

That's how it works in the US, too.

LAs can look back as far as they want, but there is no law against significantly downsizing and giving the money you have left away or spending it on holidays or putting it in trust for your dc. As long as you do it early enough, it's fine.

We plan to move out of our soon to be four bed house when our dc are fully independent and live in a two bed flat. I had my dc young enough that in theory, I should have plenty of time to give them what I want them to have long before I need elderly care. They won't get it all, some will be spent enjoying life. And as needing resedential care is not a given, there is no way I plan to spend my later years sitting around doing nothing but save for care I might not need or to pay as much as possible in inheritance tax.

It's really no one else's business what someone chooses to do with their own property.