To feel that the way we look after the elderly in this country is downright disgusting

[Besswess88]

My NDN are 90 and 93. They have no children and they own their own home.

She is my friend really despite the age difference and we have good, deep chats. She has never been in love, never been aboard and was born in 1935 and was illegitimate (as were both my parents).

I go in regularly, obviously did their shopping throughout the pandemic, help them out now they don’t have a car, go in for a chat etc etc, just neighbourly stuff.

I got age concern involved who put them in touch with amazing service from Sainsburys who allow vulnerable people with no internet to phone through their order for free delivery and persuaded her to get some help 5 days a week (but they are just doing lunch and cleaning the kitchen floor as far as I can see for bloody £25 an hour - and I keep trying to persuade her to let them help with his personal care).

He is blind and deaf and doubly incontinent and wearing pads. They share a bed and he will go into the bathroom and take the pad off flinging it everywhere, stepping in it etc and not realising. Adult social care have told her she should sell up and buy a bungalow. He is/was a huge hoarder and most of the house cannot be used because of this and I will not go in and try to “take over” and make her try to do this. She is an intelligent women who is capable of making her own decisions.

Adult social care banged on about the risk of a fire. They have lived there like that for 50 years with no fucking fire.

If they didn’t own their own home they would get so much more support and not have to face the prospect of selling up aged 90 to fund their own care?! m

She is lifting him about and cleaning up after him, he feels awful, she is exhausted. I do what I can without taking over.

Surely we are better than this?

There are firms that exist that provide carers against the value of your home, taking the payment after the person has died and there house sold. You can also just borrow money against the value of your house with the money taken back when the person eventually dies. Would this be an option so they don’t have to move?

You are wrong about the funding. There's equal support to home owners and non-home owners however with a tenant, the landlord can force the clean up.

They're entitled to the same level of in home care, and the house value is not taken in to consideration. No one, regardless of housing status, can be forced in to a care home if they have capacity. If they don't have capacity then the decision will be made for them, and whether they are home owners won't impact whether they get a care home place or not.

Social care IS massively underfunded and care as a job is not given the respect or value it deserves. But your neighbors are not disadvantaged by being home owners.

And they don't need to sell their home to rent a Bungalow because accessible housing is open to all. They may benefit from extra care sheltered accomodation - again, open to home owners.

The average tax payer has in no way paid enough for full on social care for years. They used it at the time. The "I've paid my stamp" attitude is really unhelpful. It's used at the time, and it's the next working generation who pay for the elderly. And then some, given the increasing elderly population who are living for decades with complex needs. I don't know what the answer is, but if people have assets they absolutely need to be used to pay for care. The idea of the taxpayer picking it up so that the next generation can inherit is unsustainable.

^Each working generation funds the care of their elders, with the promise of same for them.
That contract has now been broken.
Most of the younger generation will never own their own, so why should they care if someone's forced to sell their theirs after many happy years of living?^

Just says alot about people if this is the attitude. I'm just happy my parents have me and my siblings. Plus people like the op who can look outside their own circumstance.

So you think that the state should pay for everything, so that people like you can inherit?
Btw they cannot kick anybody out of their own home. Policies vary widely between councils, but state sponsored care isn't the best. They will only take money after the last surviving spouse passes away. See thebeastofsleep's post.

I think at 90 & 93 the stress of selling their home and buying another, especially in the current condition would just be far too much. Given what you describe the chances are they will probably need a lot more care sooner rather than later anyway. Perhaps having some conversations about planning for this and figuring out gently if someone can help with getting the hoarding cleared. If your NDN is as intelligent and capable as you say she is she will understand that their current situation is not ideal and something needs to change.

Nope. Think I said I'd look after my parents. My inheritance will be eaten up with care if it comes to it. I'm on about the attitude of those towards the older generation without family.

You quoted the part related to selling the house though. Again, referring to sleepybeast's posts the level of care received has nothing to do with house ownership.
Making those who can pay do so is actually one of the few things that will enable everyone to receive a decent level of care, funded, regardless of whether they have family or not. Which is what you want, no?

@ComputerQueen
So you think that the state should pay for everything, so that people like you can inherit?

I was answering this. I think this was pretty direct.

My parents will pay for their care if needed. They brought their house for their future. That only goes where its needed or where they want it to go. That won't change.

I simply argued against those insisting an elderly couple should up sticks and move simply because they were able to buy their own home years ago and have no family!

UK is unusual in having free at point of use health care.

Does any country have universal free at point of use social care?

OK, so the young who have been utterly screwed over financially in the last 15 years and might not even get a retirement should pay for it instead? Yeah that sounds fair. The way we treat our young people is equally as shit it seems.

I think that people think social care is like the nhs. They hear lots of people complaining but they're sure if something happened to them, the nhs would come good for them. It's not until you're in the social care system until you realise there actually isnt much social care. It is so time consuming dealing with everything for my mother and there is no one there to advise on access to available services. My mum is not entitled to any state help so we would gladly pay to get assistance, but there isn't any help. The charities are sympathetic but useless. The council doesn't appear to have any services we can access. Fortunately my mum has her children to sort things. But what happens to those of us who have no children? I honestly think you'd just be left to die at home because it would be too hard in your 80s to navigate your way through the shit that is UK social care.

The over 65s continue to vote overwhelmingly for a political party that shafts young people and cuts services to the bone, and then complain that there’s no social care. As ever:
’’“I didn’t think the leopards would eat MY face!” says man who voted for Face-Eating Leopards Party.””

But they don't need to upsticks and move if they don't want to. It may be that a different home would allow them to remain independent for longer (which most people want) but they aren't being forced to move. Someone in social housing would also be advised to move to a more suitable property however one wouldn't be provided for them, they'd have to go on the list and bid etc.

Having money and owning property gives them more choice and control in their care provision. Not less. And they won't and can't be forced to do anything as long as they retain capacity.

Care costs should be linked to a percentage of assets instead of a cap of £86k, that could be nearly 100% of a person's assets in poorer areas of the country but not even 1% of someone who is rich. Let the rich pay more, either by paying a higher percentage or a super tax, as usual the rich get to keep all their wealth & the poor get robbed.

I think there's also a huge degree of neglect in self care from a lot of elderly people. I worked in care for nearly 5 years but burnt out trying to care for people who were too unwell to be at home but refused to be in a care home. Relatives were exasperated and exhausted..... and most of the time, the situation should have been dealt with years beforehand.

DH and I have made plans for our own care when we need it, I don't expect our DC to be burdened with our old age.

so what would you propose then?

you won't 'take over' but expect what? others to?

Not denying what you are saying, but the public services for the elderly have been bad for decades.

It isn't anything new and they have been let down by governments of all stripes.

The fact they are home owners means they are saving the state money because they don't claim housing benefit. Why should they then have to equity release to fund their care.? What happens when there is no equity left to release - just sell their home from under their feet? Even though one of them is still independent?

Anyway, my understanding is that while one of you is living in the home its value is not taken into account when determining care funding. They really need to get a care assessment from their local council. And claim attendance allowance/carers allowance.

@Thebeastofsleep I've commented several times. I'll say it again. I think the attitude towards the older generation who own their own homes is awful.

The first few comments were about the couple moving. I was answering them.

I'm fine with mine and my family circumstance as explained before.

It may be that a different home would allow them to remain independent for longer (which most people want)

Yes, once they have looked around different homes, found an estate agent, solicitor, had different surveys done, tidied their home for each viewing, gone through all their stuff for downsizing,- stop me when you think a 92 year old will think fuck that!

Yes exactly. They DON'T need to release equity to fund care.

And yes, they should be claiming attendance allowance and the severe disability payment if eligible.

And I'll say it again because you missed it. They don't need to sell their home to get suitable accessible housing.

OK. Explain to me how they move at the age of 92 with zero stress. No family support. Where they go. Where all their stuff goes. Who cares enough to stand by them through out. If they have pets, if they are established in their town, village etc.

Where is this accessible housing? I already know you can't answer any of my questions.

That's a bit of a rose tinted view of the past. Many people couldn't afford to put aside money for their old age and ended up in the workhouse when they were no longer fit enough to work in the days before social security

I think you are being spun a line OP.

Social services will only take the value of their home into account once neither of them are living in the home. They are as entitled to income based means tested social care provision as the renters down the road.

I can't imagine a scenario where a social care professional would advise two very elderly people with hoarding issues and no family support to sell up and buy a bungalow instead. At a push I can imagine that a move to a social housing bungalow may have been offered/suggested to them on the basis that people are worried they might be at risk in their current situation.

And if they are as alone as you say they are why do you have any problem with them using any money they have to make their final years more comfortable? It's not like there is anyone in line to inherit...