Selling your home to pay for your care in your old age

[BlueCarnation]

Please explain why this is such an issue? I’m not from the UK but have worked and lived here for about 10 years. The amount of financial help the government provides is incredible and I’m still amazed by it after being here for so long. NHS, schools, SMP, different types of benefits, child credits etc. My country provides absolute no help like that for it’s residents.

One thing I can’t get my head around is the outrage people feel regarding paying for your own care when you’re older. A few weeks ago there was a news special where people were upset that their parents had to sell their homes to go into care. Surely that’s the point of years of hard work - so that when the time comes you have sufficient money? If I recall correctly, a woman said she would no longer be able to live in her mums house and would be homeless. Her mum was already in a care home but needed extra specialised care ( I think she had dementia) which government support was not enough for. The daughter said the house would need to be sold and her mum would have been devastated if she knew her home was being used to pay for her care. Why is that wrong or unfair?

Can you explain if you cannot live safely in your house anymore why shouldn’t the proceeds from your house sale be used to care for you until death? Why are adult children so up in arms at the thought of that? I don’t understand.

I agree with you, OP. I think the argument is that it's not fair that some people have to sell their houses and some don't and can leave them to their children, but isn't it also unfair that some people don't have houses to leave in the first place?! Inheritance (which I'm not against per se) is unfair.

It’s not as simple as they can pay for nice care, as I said upthread - my mum is currently paying for care in the home, but her savings will run out and then she will get less care in the home which isn’t nice for her. Equally if she goes into a home, when her house cash runs out she will be moved to a cheaper one. This must apply to many, many elderly who have some savings, and a 1-2 hundred k home. Also, as someone pointed out we get the social worker regularly around checking and assessing. A separate point is the carers not having time to do a decent job and some breaking stuff lately when she pays 425 a week so generally you’d expect a reasonable service for those costs. It varies from council to council but my mother pays £25 per hour per carer though it is then capped at 425. One council in London charges nothing - that’s right, 0 pounds, but others also charge more. One of my daughters is a carer and gets less than NMW overnight as it’s called a sleep in, even when it isn’t. Money is made by private firms and cost is not really equitable.
There is so much wrong and/or broken with the system that needs fixing and whilst glad at least this is recognised now just haphazardly throwing cash at it via NI or as much from those average savers/owners who can pay as possible is not resolving these issues, seems unfair to the squeezed average elderly homeowner, and so is continuing to cause resentment.
Current elderly probably never expected to pay, so they are bound to be a bit upset or puzzled by it. Not many would rather get an inheritance than see their relatives cared for, but this has turned into yet another us/them argument like we see with benefits/migrants etc etc when really we need to be on the same side and seeking fairness for all.

The 'deprivation of assets' is interesting and I wonder if some people still manage to avoid paying for their own care having knowingly done this. My MIL was widowed 40 years ago while DH and his siblings were little. She has lived very frugally ever since (often mentions being 'hard-up' in the early years of being widowed) but has savings and owns her house that's currently worth about £600k. Her view is that if her DH had lived, the kids would have had a better childhood financially and she wants to protect their inheritance... she worked full-time but had to sell his business when he died to make ends meet. She worked full time for over 50 years (ironically for the NHS!) until she retired in her early 70s. She is adamant that if she needs residential care that they won't have to lose the money they stand to inherit. So she signed 3/4 of the house over to them about five years ago. She's now in her early 80s, and other than some mobility issues is thankfully in good health. I sympathise with her view, but all her DC are currently plodding along financially, work full time in good jobs, definitely not wealthy but on property ladder, can afford annual holiday etc. I think there are grounds here for deprivation of assets if she eventually needs care 🤷🏻‍♀️ but she is adamant about protecting their inheritance!

@ronniz

Because people who chose not to work, that get handouts all their life, thanks to my hard work and my relatives hard work.

You can't generalise like that. I have a home, have I worked harder than those that haven't? No I just was helped on to the ladder by parents & prices weren't so crazy then.

A million times this.

@Nat6999
The fund should go to fund those without a fund. With tax some pay in more than they take out , we have taxes to help support those that need it. I pay tax if I decide to eg send children to private school/use private healthcare should I demand my tax back!

You speak from my hear.I also was not born in Britain,but live here for many many years.I absolutely agree with every word you said OP.It must be the children's greed or entitlement to an inheritance.maybe very so often it would be worth mentioning:you can spend your money when you are dead,so you might as well spend it for decent care.nothing lasts forever!

I don't think it's necessarily greed or entitlement of children's parts - parents want to leave something to their children.

My Dad is 'happy' to pay but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have liked to leave his grandchildren something from his assets, which is very unlikely.

@Thatldo

You speak from my hear.I also was not born in Britain,but live here for many many years.I absolutely agree with every word you said OP.It must be the children's greed or entitlement to an inheritance.maybe very so often it would be worth mentioning:you can spend your money when you are dead,so you might as well spend it for decent care.nothing lasts forever!

I'm sorry but I don't understand why people are able to make such sweeping statements. Exactly what statistically sound research are you and OP basing these claims on? Everyone I know is accepting of the fact that our parents' homes will be sold to pay for their care. What I hear more is the guilt that we can't look after Regen ourselves. Whilst of course there are some people who are greedy and entitled, in my experience these are in the minority.. I find your claims really offensive to be honest.

itisthecause thanks for writing about the reality of long-term costs for degenerative illnesses. I sometimes think about this when eg NICE announces the funding for a new amazing NHS drug at £thousands a dose, or we hear about the cost of each hospital bed or even each stay in prison. Not paying for your dad’s Parkinson’s care is a political choice that is enabled by the ability to engage in cheap arguments that appeal to people’s tabloid sense of ‘what is right’.because they can never imagine it happening to them or their families so they can drone on from what they imagine to be the moral high ground like the OP. This is a cost that should be shared through taxation by everyone who can afford to pay, not just those who fall ill with long term illnesses and their families.

Equally if she goes into a home, when her house cash runs out she will be moved to a cheaper one

You have got to be kidding!! Is this how it works in the UK? Where I live, when the cash runs out the government take over the payments and you stay in the same home.

What I hear more is the guilt that we can't look after Regen ourselves

THEM not Regen. How the hell did it autocorrect to that?

It's not fair if one person pays as they have a house and another person doesn't. Simple.

@Gooseysgirl
Sounds like deprivation of assets going on. The council I believe can go back and look at these things quite rightly (no time limit). Especially with something as blatant as signing over 75% of a property.

@RockingMyFiftiesNot.have you ever read a newspaper or can you imagine any politician saying outright,it is expected to sell the home in order to pay for all your care in older age.they all tiptoeing around it,because most(not all)people expect an inheritance.it is the people at the "bottom" and the very rich people that keep stumm in this matter,because it does not affect them.there really is no statistics needed.why do you think home ownership in this country is so much aspired to?it is the idea,you pass on your assets to your offspring.

why do you think home ownership in this country is so much aspired to?it is the idea,you pass on your assets to your offspring.

I have never heard anyone i know, ever, say they have bought a house to pass on assets to their offspring. But I've only lived here since the 1960s so you carry on with your superior knowledge of how we all live and think in the uk

@PurpleDaisies

It’s awful for social mobility. Rich people manage to hold on to their assets and pass them to their children. The entire value of poorer peoples houses goes on care.

This point exactly

I have heard that self funded people pay more than concil funded people in homes. So double whammy if that is true

We have an ageing population that is living longer with a declining birth rate. There’s just not enough working age people paying into the system to fund social care for the elderly.

I agree with some PP. I would be expected to sell my stocks, shares, assets to pay for my retirement, and as much as people have a emotional connection to their houses it’s just another financial asset which will need to be sold.

Also some of the comments here regarding people not owning a home are shocking. Some people aren’t lucky enough to get on the housing ladder that doesn’t mean they’re scrounging!? Also more and more people are finding themselves unable to buy a home so more people will need support in old age. Stop demonising the poor, having assets will provide you with choices regarding your care, whilst those being paid for by the government will have no choice.

If you want to protect your assets for your kids look up insurance policies or investments that can provide income for care if needed. You should plan your estate and part of the planning is making provisions for your care if need be. NI and income tax is not a personal insurance policy and can change rapidly depending on the political climate. You shouldn’t rely solely on the state pension if you can afford to save for retirement as it may not be around when you retire and the same should be said for social care.

If people don’t like this they should stop voting conservative.

There should be a hypothecated £10,000 levy on every estate. That way everyone with assets pays something.

I agree op, if my parents need to sell their home to get the best care then so be it. It’s their hard earned money, it’s up to children to make their own way in life and save for their long term care. We are a very spoilt nation that constantly wants more.

If housing costs weren't ridiculous & we had more social housing then I think people wouldn't care so much about "helping" their dc as the dc could have security without help.

@gofg

Equally if she goes into a home, when her house cash runs out she will be moved to a cheaper one

You have got to be kidding!! Is this how it works in the UK? Where I live, when the cash runs out the government take over the payments and you stay in the same home.

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of funding for a care home bed, however in around 20 years working in care homes I have never known -

A) someone to move care homes unless it's to be nearer to family or because they are unhappy, or because the home they are in cannot meet their needs any longer (for example moving from a residential home to an EMI home that is set up for caring for those with advanced dementia)
B) that as soon as they switch from self funded to council funded they somehow get 'less' care from the home they are in. I would certainly be creating a fuss if I were told by my manager to not meet room 8's care needs any longer because of what/how they're funded. It just doesn't happen. We treat everyone the same as in we meet their needs the best way we can. The care assistants delivering the care don't even know the funding status of the people they care for unless we're told (and this happens!) By the person themselves or the family, it's not information we have it need to have access to.

From what I see and understand, everyone gets treated the same regardless of funding, however there's a difference when it comes to needing care that the funding (whoever is paying) isn't covering like 1:1 or even 2:1 care all the time to ensure someone is safe. I have experience of people needing someone with them 24/7 on a 1:1 basis and the application being refused by ASS on the basis of 'need' - as in the person doing the assesments don't believe they need it. My feeling is that it's probably denied on cost rather than need though.

As I understand, a care home sets it's fees, if the LA doesn't meet those fees then those who are self funded pay more to cover the shortfall. I guess the real issues are if the fees are too high to start with and the LA is paying a fair amount, or the LA isn't paying the true cost of care.

I agree. I wany my children to inherit because that is the only way they will ever be able to afford a home and pay off astronomical student debt. People should not be made to feel ashamed for wanting to support their children; I certainly don't and if others want to abandon theirs to fate, then I wish them all the luck in the world as according to this thread, that is what gets you a home and assets.

I just wondered if you happy to self fund believe that's the right thing would you support an increase in tax to help fund this badly underfunded area? Say an increase in inheritance tax?