AIBU to try and prevent care home fees? Advice appreciated

[Watermelonsuns]

So my parents are elderly, both have health issues but managing well at home. My mum in particular would struggle if something happened to my dad. Recently a friend's parent had to go into a care home and as the parent owned their own house and savings they are self funding and the fees are crazy.
AIBU to try and find a way to protect my parent's property and savings in order its not all gone in care home fees in the last years?
Someone has suggested moving their property into my name but surely that would be an obvious way to avoid fees and would look dodgy? Is there another loop hole im missing? Aby advice from someone working in this area would be appreciated thanks

If you do move your parents home to your name and they end up needing care the council/social services will still do a financial check . Just pay for the care if you need to, don't be so grabby!!

Well if your parents cannot self fund the care home they will live in will be very basic tbh.
Mine and DH home is earmarked for care home fees should we need it and dc are aware of that.
Having seen the difference between local
authority home and a private home the difference in care and facilities/food is massive. The staff in both work very hard but the LA home is underfunded.

Why are they so special and different they don’t have to pay?

Unfortunately this post isn’t going to go well, deprivation of assets isn’t something that goes down well. Why wouldn’t you want your parents going into a nice home that they pay for, rather than any one that has space and cheaper paid for by the Council.

OP, iys your parent's home. What's wrong with them spending g their money to get the best care possible for their last moment on earth? That's what I want my parents to do. They deserve it.

I get it tbh OP. You'll get slated on here, but I'd prefer to pay more tax each year and have the basic health care needs of pur elderly covered.

You’re trying to avoid fees so you get the money not for your parents - if they’re in a care home they don’t need thousands of pounds. Who are you expecting will pay for your parents’ care? Me and all the other taxpayers who don’t try and dodge it?

We need a proper grown up conversation in this country about the cost of elderly care and the fact we need to bloody well fund it ourselves or pay VASTLY higher taxes to fund it.

And who do you think should pay so that you can inherit?

IMO this is what savings and assets are for - to fund someone’s older years. Not to pass on.

But no one else would - we consistently vote for governments who promise endlessly tax cuts and then whine there’s no money for public services!

Because it's all about protecting the inheritance. Grabby n greedy. You and your family are not special op. And do you really want them to spend their final year's in a basic underfunded care home so you can benefit yourself?

I won't pile on, as I'm sure you'll have plenty of people explaining to you you're not the first to consider deprivation of assets and how bad it is 😬

Just make sure the assets are fairly distributed between them. For example if everything's in your dads name and he needs to go in a care home first, you don't want that all being drained and leaving your mum penniless! I understand it's hard as presumably you have an eye on inheriting, but you NEED to make sure they get the best out of their money, and if this means spending it all on a nicer care home until there's nothing left then you need to do that.

Op yanbu to want to do this, but yabu to do it.

the care system is broken. Just like with nurseries, the government subsidy for those that get it is so low that the rest of us end up paying more in fees to cover their costs. Care homes are run for profit, which means they are incentivised to drive down care to the cheapest level possible. You end up paying hundreds of thousands of pounds a year for not enough care and it’s heartbreaking.

If your parents have less than £23k in savings they may be eligible for state funded care, and if they are living in their house they will not be forced to sell it. Your parents will be means tested and the local authority will do everything in their power not to pay anything towards their care costs, as they have no money either.

If you transfer their money or assets into your name when you can reasonably expect them to need care in the future then this is called deprivation of assets, it’s illegal and you will have to give the money back to pay for their care. Yes, historic records will be checked.

(edited for spelling)

That would be called “deprivation of assets” and is a criminal offence.

There has to be 7 years between the assets being transferred, and the assets being assessed for care home fees.

We don’t pay any care home fees for mum, as another relative, over the age of 60, had lived there all his life.

From experience, no, there is no way to avoid them. Couvils know all the tricks. 🤷‍♀️

I agree with this. We have to start understanding that we have a responsibility to fund ourselves as much as possible until the very end. If we wind up needing expensive care then that is 'our' cost and not one that should be absorbed by the state or paid by someone else.

OP I think you need to reframe your parents house as being their asset that they are holding their money in at the moment. Should it no longer serve it's purpose for them and they need the money for care home fees then of course the asset should be liquidated and the money put to the best use. It isn't your asset in anyway and you have no entitlement to it. If they die without using up their assets only then does it become relevant to you. Too many people are banking on inheritance and therefore get angry when they see it being taken away from them and spent on care home fees when the reality is it was was never their money in the first place.

The taxpayer isn't there to protect your inheritance.

If you want to protect your inheritance could you provide care for them yourself? Depending on how much you earn and if you can afford to give up work?

If they can't/won't use assets to pay for care then it's a gamble on the care they will receive. My nan never owned a property and had almost no assets by the time we finally got to the point where she needed to be in a care home. We were told there were spaces available in 4 and went to view all in one day. All were ran by seemingly lovely, hard working staff but 3 would have been totally unsuitable.

We were very lucky she got a space in the 4th home. Lovely setting, all on one level, bright and airy with lovely garden areas and lots of activities etc. Food was really good and my nan could ask for a bacon sandwich in the night and they'd do it for her. When she went on end of life care they were amazing. Three carers would all come in on their days off just so they could be sure to have seen her before she passed and to talk to me and my mum while we sat with her.

Nan being there was the only thing that eased my mum's guilt about her mum going into a home - not that she has anything at all to feel guilty about. She needed care we couldn't provide safely, simple as. But I know if we'd had to have placed her somewhere we knew deep down wasn't right for her, we'd have felt awful, even if it was our only option.

So I'd say if they can afford to put something towards assuring the most suitable place for them, It's probably sensible to do so.

I avoided care home fees but it was hard work. Lent my mum the money to help buy a flat in a very sheltered (24 hour warden) place. Rented out her home. Employed a part time carer directly (NEST Nat Ins etc) with a standby team if she needed someone in overnight.

However she had good pensions and her home achieved a good rent.

She suffered from Alzheimers for 10 years, and somehow managed to live within her income, whilst retaining her dignity. Care home fees for that period would have eaten up all of her assets and more, and she would have hated her loss of independence. I reckon my inheritance was worth about the same as the income I would have had if I had stayed in work during that period. DB of course assumed his equal inheritance was his due and that there was no need to thank me or even acknowledge what I achieved.

I would look at encouraging them to move somewhere with support where they can stay at home for longer. It is their money and the first priority is to use it to make their lives as comfortable as possible.

OP, the whole point of retaining an asset such as a property is so that it's possible to fund one's own care, if the need arises! If your parents have no need of the house any longer, then it absolutely should be sold and the money then available to them will mean that they can be looked after in a nice place.

Why do you think they should be entitled to "free" care and living costs (ie, it's not free, it's paid for by the rest of us taxpayers!)?

When my Dad had to go into a dementia care home, he was self funding and I am so pleased he was able to spend HIS money on HIS care. The homes the council would have paid for were bloody awful. Money gives you the choice and if you want to take that choice away from your parents, so that you can retain their funds - well (for once) words fail me.

Why do you think someone else should pay for their care, when they have the money to fund it? Just so you can have it all for yourself when they die.

Shame on you. And btw, you can't. They're well aware of every method people use to try this.

AIBU to try and find a way to protect my parent's property and savings in order its not all gone in care home fees in the last years?

You say protect my parents' property but you mean Avoid paying their way in life so I get to inherit their estate. But if they don't pay for their own care then the taxpayer does. I don't want to see elderly people being left without the care they need, but that doesn't mean I'm happy to pay for it so you don't have "your inheritance" reduced. (Quote marks because while your parents are alive, it's their money and not yours)

And yes, councils are very much aware people will try to cheat and dodge paying so they have employees whose job it is to ensure that “deprivation of assets” isn't being employed. They know every trick in the book.

But why should people who will not inherit, or who may never own their own home, or be able to put by lots of savings of their own pay more tax on their incomes to protect the big inheritances other people like the OP are set to receive? Taxation has a role in public services, but not so some people can keep inheritances at the expense of those without inheritances.

Its a bit of a mine field, this. People are right to point out the morals of enriching yourself while the taxpayer funds your parents' care, but I think when put in the same position, most people, I think, would at least ask the question privately and examine their options.

Deprivation of assets, to my knowledge will ultimately backfire if it comes to light the purpose was to reduce the estate thus avoiding/minimising care costs. There will be a lot of issues to consider, i.e. the likelihood of your parents needing care within a certain time frame. To my knowledge, local authorities vary in their vigour to root this out. But if their health is starting to fail now, and care is a destination on the path that is set, my experience and knowledge would suggest it is already too late.

Then there is the question of what your parents are willing to do. Are they willing to essentially give up a large proportion of their wealth with absolutely zero control over it? Whether you think its bad planning or whatever, its still their assets to do with what they please.

I would take professional advice.