To feel grabby and uncomfortable with this.

[abstractplantpot]

Background - i'm married with kids we own our house and a small business. Sister single by choice owns her own house works full time and has a horse.

My father died 5 yrs ago and mum is left with the house they lived in and a small savings pot. She has been diagnosed with dementia and is needing increasing care.

My sister had talked about either renting her house out or selling it to move in with mum as she would eventually like to live in that house herself. This is fine by me. At the moment we share her care. I also do all the household business like keeping bills paid ensuring she has food and everything she needs.

Sister was advised by "the girls in work" to get legal advice before she did this as she could end up loosing out. I agreed and wanted us to get the correct info on how to do this legally and above board.

I couldn't go with her as i had no child care for the time she made the appointment so she went alone.

She has come back from the solicitor and said she doesn't need to move in with mum. She wants to open a bank account in her name and my name and transfer mums savings to it. Then get the house put into our names. with a document saying mum can live there untill she's no longer able.

For me this doesn't solve the problem of mum needing care! She has gone into that appointment trying to protect her inheritance and not looked at how we can help mum.

She's telling me she needs to look after her own interests as she hasn't got anyone else to do it for her. I have a husband she has no one. She is pushing me to do this quickly as she said we have to have it done for three years otherwise if mum goes into a home she will loose the house.

She isn't listening when i mention this doesn't help with caring for mum.

i do not want to do the joint account as it will mean my earnings for this year will push up to the next tax bracket. we own a business and this will be an asset. She's happy to move it into an account
solely in her name which again i'm fine
with but what about caring for mum.

Am i being unreasonable for being uncomfortable with this. I was happy to do it when she was moving into the house (happy to get deeds in her name or joint names not the bank account) to care for mum when she wasn't at work. i'd have gone in during the day. But now she's forgotten all about mum and is concentrating on the money.

How can i make her see i'm unhappy with this with out seeming i'm selfish.
thanks.

Glitter it's not a case of 'the government come along and take all your assets', it's a case of people using their very often, hundreds of thousands of pounds they have to pay for what they need at the end of their life. Rather than expecting other taxpayers to cough up just so family can claim an inheritance. After all, by the time a care home is needed what else is their money for? And what's leaving the £14k all about? Use up down to £7.k, leave enough for a funeral and spend the rest.
And very many haven't paid taxes all their lives. My MIL like thousands of her generation gave up work in her 20's and never returned. She's now 81 and still going. As is 83 year old FIL retired for over 30 years on bumper pensions.
A care home at £1000 per week equates to roughly £1.30 an hour. My nursery fees cost more than that 20 years ago.
The system is in absolute crisis 'with' those that can rightly contributing towards their own heating, lighting, food, maintenance, laundry, 24/7 care etc. Imagine how much worse it would be without. From which pot and which group would the extra millions be taken?
If we want to live routinely into our very old age in our millions with multiple and expensive to manage co-morbidities then we can't afford sentiment.

Although quite often private homes are considerably more than £100 top up each week. Often close to double the cost.

I disagree. Social care should be a form of NHS care that we as tax payers fund. When someone has paid their taxes for their whole lives and worked hard for the assets they own I find it saddening that the government will happily come along and take all this away from you when you need it most. My MIL worked her whole life for the NHS as a cleaner earning minimum wage, no pension other than state pension, she had very little in terms of assets (a mobile home!) and only savings from a life insurance payment when her son died. She was not a multi millionaire or someone with a home worth £800k, and the financial assessment decided because she had a mobile home (which they never took time to value) that she was self funding. I don't consider this fair.
The council will start to fund when the value of your assets and capital reduce to £14500 so this is why I'm quoting this amount.
We pay taxes for everything, council tax, income tax, national health insurance, stamp duty. Why is social care not considered part of NHS support? Would you expect to pay for cancer treatment, rehabilitation, hospice care? Why should those suffering with forms of dementia be treated any different?
I don't disagree that there is a crisis of social care and have experienced the very best and worst of this from individuals and companies. Some individuals who shouldn't be in care at all, offering sub standard care (visits to my MIL lasted 3 minutes at times when they were supposed to be there 30 minutes to make meal, cup of tea etc). Companies who's interests are purely on making money, look at companies house for accounts of local care homes to see how profitable they are. The NHS should be involved, this shouldn't be private care that we fund and individuals make a profit on. I dont want my loved ones hard earned money ending up with a fat cat owner of a care home!

£100 was the very maximum we were offered, most care homes were £30, £50 but it may depend on regions and local council payments.

A care home at £1000 per week equates to roughly £1.30 an hour. My nursery fees cost more than that 20 years ago.

It's about £5.95 per hour per person. Which is not 1:1 support. Closer to 1:6.

I don’t understand why you’re ‘happy’ with any of this!

£100 was the very maximum we were offered, most care homes were £30, £50 but it may depend on regions and local council payments.

Yes it will vary by region. Yours sounds very cheap. Although obviously not to the family members paying it out.

The council will start to fund when the value of your assets and capital reduce to £14500 so this is why I'm quoting this amount.

It's £23,250. Although a contribution towards may still need to be made below this amount.

Does she have POA?. I'd be giving her a very stern talking to and getting your DM the care she needs without your untrustworthy sisters involvement.

That house is needed for care. I'm sorry but no one is getting inheritance if you and dsis don't work together to care for her.

Yes agree, my original post was to say this is what you would be left with £14500 as the final cut off point of council funding.

Why is social care not considered part of NHS support?

It is for some things such as rehab at home for a short period of time. And there is health funding for those who meet the strict criteria. But there isn't the money to pay for a care home for every single person that needed it. It would be nice. But it's just not possible.

Yes agree, my original post was to say this is what you would be left with £14500 as the final cut off point of council funding.

Ah ok. if someone has a high pensions / weekly income etc that are over a certain amount, then they may still need to make a contribution even if their savings had dropped to that point. I don't know the exact figures / calculations, but it's easy enough to find.

The OP already has a lasting power of attorney, and as such will be in serious trouble if she allows her sister to do what she plans.

Of course it's fair. The fact they let you keep £14k is itself ridiculous. What for?! It's not 'the government taking it away', it's simply paying your way.
Again, what else is their money for by the time care is needed? Where exactly do you want their money to end up?
At £1000k a month 24/7 care equates to £1.30 an hour. An absolute bargain! Why should taxpayers be paying for your MIL food and heating etc etc she would pay herself if still at home.
What about those that haven't paid taxes their whole lives through choice? Like my MIL. Millions of those. Very very many taking out far more than they have ever put in.
It is saddening, but in reality there are now so many older people living longer and costing a great deal that this is the downside. We can't expect to live a long life and expect others to pay for it when we can afford it ourselves. And if you don't like the rules then spend or drip feed it away to family. That gamble is then on the individual.

The poster is correct. Self funders start to be supported by the council when savings/assets drop below £23,250, but they don’t get a full contribution. Full local authority funding only starts when the capital and assets reduce below £14,500 - this is the amount that the council has to leave you with. What many people also forget is that if you are in receipt of state pension, when you start to be funded by the council, you will be asked to make a contribution from this towards your care even though your savings/assets are below the threshold.

Why is it ridiculous ? They leave you with £14,500 because you will have funeral expenses and other expenses when you pass away. I’m not in favour in any way of the tax payer funding care for those who can fund themselves, but to suggest that the council take every penny and leave you destitute and without the necessary funds to cover end of life expensive savings is what’s ridiculous. And you also forget that self funders are paying more for their care, to subsidise those funded by the Local Authority. In our area the average care home resident who lives five years in a care home, will have contributed £60,000 from their own funding source towards the care of others.

Sorry, that should have read ‘to cover end of life expenses’. Sausage fingers.

They are expected to make a contribution towards care if they are in receipt of state pension, even when savings/assets drop below the threshold.

At £1000k a month 24/7 care equates to £1.30 an hour.

Is there any homes that are £1000 per month. (£250 per week?) £1000 per week more likely.

Councils can (and will) go back as far as they like.

Oh and it’s not £1000 a month, it’s £1000 a week, which equates to around £5.95 an hour - which is neither one to one nor tailored to the individuals’ needs beyond a basic care plan.

Plus the fact that the council wouldn’t need to go back very far to prove deprivation of assets in the OP’s case - her mum already has a diagnosis of dementia and as such would be considered to have reasonably expected to need care. It clear cut, and as you rightly say, illegal. It’s theft.

The OP herself has a POA but doesn’t seem to be aware of her responsibilities as such. All she needs to do is remind her sister that she can’t do anything without her own say so, as she is her mums’ legal representative, and therefore responsible for acting in their mum’s best interests. If she doesn’t do anything to stop her sister, and this comes to light, she’ll be in a world of shit. I am actually beginning to wonder if this is a wind up because I can’t believe anyone in their right mind would consider this to be acceptable.

The OP has POA, but a POA doesn’t entitle her to steal her mum’s money and property - which is what this is.

These days self funders pay more - in our area roughly £1000 a month more - to subsidise the LA for those who can’t pay. It’s actually a bit more complicated than that, but that’s what it amounts to.