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

This is helpful. Post after post repeating 7yr DOA rules isn't what the op was after.

You are not being honest with us or yourself.

This is about protecting your inheritance. Don’t dress it up as anything else.

We all face the same situation don’t you think the Government might just be one step ahead of you and have procedures in place to avoid this from happening.

Why are you any more deserving than the rest of us?

Putting a property in your name OP or transferring funds into your account is deprivation of assets. If this is done 7 years before care is needed then whilst the council may ask questions ( they do btw) there’s nothing they can do.

This is nonsense.

If one elderly person goes into a home they cannot use the house to cover fees if their spouse/partner is still living there and they are older.
If the ownership of the house is split then the home residents half can be sold.

Have you thought of renting out your parents home to pay for care
or
If it’s not suitable could you / they sell their home and buy a property ( or properties ) with good rental yields.

If a family member is living in the house, they cannot be made to sell it, certainly that's the case in Scotland. So if df goes into a home and DM lives in the house it cannot be sold. If you or DC move into the house if and when DM goes into a care home you (or DC) cannot be forced out if that home is your own residence. The fees build up and the council has first claim if and when the house is sold. There MAY be a time limit on this I'm not sure.

It is about protecting a home that has been paid for.

Why should homeowners pay when renters get care free?

Taxes should cover health and social care.

Has the law changed recently?
I wasn’t aware

I would need around £150k to build an extension with a bathroom in it in order for my Mum to move in as we don't have a downstairs one and she can't manage stairs. I would also need to sleep downstairs with her as she is a wanderer and would leave the house if we weren't careful. I would also be taking her hours from her friends that visit. She would be utterly miserable.

I agree. Doesn't the 7 year rule just apply to inheritance tax? I believe that councils can look back much further for deprivation of assets for care home payment purposes.

@Watermelonsuns - what is your evidence for claiming that your parents would end up getting the same standard of care and accommodation from LA funded care as they would if they were paying for it?

If this were true, all the care homes would offer the same standard of accommodation, food, care etc - and I honestly do not believe that they do.

You only have to look at the online brochures for different private care homes to see the quality of the accommodation and food etc - I honestly don't think that council run/funded homes have that quality.

My FIL may need care, in the not-too-distant future - and if he lives long enough, he could go through all his money, and leave nothing for dh and his brother - but we want him to have the best standard of living and care possible, and if that means no inheritance, that is fine by us. Incidentally, he was a tax payer all his life, carried on working (and paying tax) well past retirement age, and still volunteers in his community. If he has to pay for his care, why shouldn't your parents have to pay too - they are no more deserving than he is.

And what about people who have not paid a lot of tax over their lifetimes because they couldn't work - raising children, caring for relatives etc etc - are they less 'deserving' of care than your parents?

I’ve worked in social care 14 years and can honestly say that more expensive does not mean better quality care. You might have a better decorated room and better quality food but crap care. Also, if self funders become local authority funded having spent most of their money, more often than not there will be a compromise on fees between the home and LA to avoid the resident moving. Self-funders then subsidise LA funded residents. I completely understand why OP wants to try and avoid this. The more you have, the more they take off you, so enjoy what you have while you don’t need care

Hospice care and care homes are a completely different kettle of fish. A hospice is usually short term to support someone who requires end of life care.

If your parents gift you their home and then need to go into a nursing home, the local authority may consider this a "deprivation of assets" and still include the value of the house when calculating their care fees, meaning you might be responsible for contributing towards their care costs even though you now own the house, especially if they gifted it to you close to the time they needed care; it's crucial to seek legal advice before making such a significant transfer of ownership.

No it hasn't.

Local authorities can, and have been able to for some time, go back as far as they feel inclined looking for deprivation of assets.

My local authority wanted to know exactly how much my mum sold a house for in 2004, for instance. And they're perfectly entitled to do this, and to investigate everything.

Well said

Haven't the majority of people worked hard their entire life. OP's parents are not special or different

Because it's about using assets to pay for that care, and renters simply don't have that asset. Their savings etc will be used up the same as everyone else.

It's not about 'protecting a home' as the people going into care literally won't live in that home anymore. What you're talking about is protecting their children's inheritance.

You're too late if they already have the health problems they would require care for.

It's also a bit of a myth that there is a 7 year cut off - that's IHT but local councils can investigate as far back as they want.

Its all a bit pointless too, most people don't go into a care home, even if they do, its not for long.

As a Financial Advisor once told me "Its better to have the funds in place, if you can, rather than trying to avoid them"

I do think though that we need to have a nationawide, compulsory insurance scheme specifically for long term care, i believe it has been mooted before but nothing done.

In England, it's not any relative.

While I agree with your conclusion, I don't think this was a point they were making.

Pointless?
Protecting your wealth also includes protecting it from inheritance tax, I don't think wealthy people consider that to be pointless.

What do you mean? The poster above is quoting something the OP said in one of her follow-up posts.

Yes it does apply to inheritance tax.
It also applied / applies to care home fees.
Or did when we were looking in 2012.
By that time my dh already owned his parents house and the council looked at my MILs assets and told us as the house was my dhs ( her half was transferred in excess of 7years, his fathers half even before that ) they couldn’t touch it.

All her savings went to her care so she still self funded obviously.
When the savings were nearly all gone the council assessed again and again they did not look at the house.

However this was over 12 years ago so maybe things have changed.