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

@Watermelonsuns The poster above is not entirely correct.

YES: Deprivation of assets is a Criminal Offence

NOT correct that there has to be only 7 years between the assets being transferred, to the date that care is needed. The LA can go back a lot longer than 7 years if it wishes to do so

The above poster has got confused about the rules surrounding Deprivation of assets and Inheritance Tax which are 2 different things. If money is transfered to avoid paying Inheritance tax when the person dies, there only has to be 7 years between that and the date of death to avoid paying Inheritance tax, if the value of the Estate including the transferred amount is above a certain level.

But as others have said, do you really want your parents to be stuck in an LA home, without any choice on where they go?

I love the idea that the only reason some people don't own a house is because they are lazy and spend all their money on gin and cruises.

It doesn't make any sense to me. You want to steal your parents' home and savings so they have a shit last few years? That seems to be what you're saying.

It's their money, keep your paws off it.

That is amazing that the local authority are able to do this (in terms of being competent to do so) where I live the LA have a reputation for not knowing where their cash goes to if asked how much something has cost

If they want to stay in their own home and take equity release they could but it’s a very expensive way of accessing money. An independent living flat in a retirement village would be a much better option.

But you’re not really not thinking about your parents OP you’re thinking about yourself. Your parents have worked hard all their lives and built up equity and that should be used to fund the best care possible. High end private care homes with good to excellent CQC ratings are a million miles away from the perfunctory state offerings. So the short answer is no. You can’t make over your parents’ property to yourself because you don’t want to see your inheritance disappear in care fees, it’s a deprivation of assets and it’s not in their best interest.

The average length of a hospice stay is 18 days so it is in no way comparable. Also most hospices are charities funded through donations, and unfortunately cannot afford to take everyone.

Your parents will be able to stay in their home until they both go into care or pass away. At that point the care home is their new home so they no longer need their house.

Be honest, at least with yourself, you want to keep their assets for your own benefit, not theirs. Ideally you should be using their assets to give them the best possible in their end of life years.

One of my colleagues released equity from her parents home/used their savings to hire a live in carer so they could stay in their home for a couple of more years until they needed to go into a residential care home. That is good, and permittable, use of their assets.

If you successfully manage to keep your parents property that should pay for their care , then you should be aware that other people are effectively funding their care - not just through taxation, but because other residents of the home - who have families just like you - are effectively paying the ‘full fees’ which are inflated to pay for the non payers.

Maybe it's an extension of the argument young people don't own property, as they spend all their money on mobile phones and avocado toast?!

I completely agree. But what self funding does, is give you is choice in terms of timing and care provider. With an LA funded place you have very little choice, and they tend to offer too little too late. I chose a care home for my (self funded) mother which offers brilliant care. It isn't posh or swanky, but the staff are fantastic and I feel lucky to know them. After several years my mother's funds ran out, the compromise you mention happened, she is now LA funded in the same placement. I think of her years of self-funding as subsidising her future self.

Haven't most local authorities sold off their care home so most are owned privately and then the LA or NHS for continuing care pays fees to the private owners (at a much lower rate than self funders pay).
The staff (in theory) don't know which resident is self funding - they are given the same food, the rooms are identical, the care looks exactly the same for all residents.
Bills are sent out by head office.

Half the country sponges off the other half. That's the reality.

To add

Whilst the council did look at MILs half of the house they said they couldn't consider it as
my dh had owned it for too long
it was transferred to him when my MIL was fit and well so
proving the need for a care home would be costly
proving the intention that it was a deprivation of assets would be costly

Your parents current health would therefore make the intention of the transfer potentially hard to disprove.

This is all assuming, of course, the workings of the law haven’t changed. Which some here say they have.

A fair proportion of them I’d guess, if they had any sense! If you’ve got money the state takes it from you, if you’ve nothing the state pays…the squeezed middle pays for everyone else every time! Spend it and enjoy it while you can is the lesson Ive learned…
our neighbours are in their mid 80’s they take 3 or 4 6 week cruises a year, there won’t be any cash left if and when they need care (I know this because they are quite open about having sold their house to an equity scheme) good luck to them!

We have wondered about this - what would happen if my FIL did need care, but then ran out of funds - and what we have understood is that he wouldn't be thrown out of his chosen care home, but might well end up in a less nice room.

And whilst I agree that an expensive care home doesn't guarantee good care, it does offer good quality accommodation and food, and I think that these do matter a lot too. If FIL does need care, we want him to be comfortable and well fed and happy, and that matters so much more to us than any potential inheritance.

It really depends on the care and the management. Some high end places have amazing care and excellent CQC ratings.

There is one expensive place in Notting Hill that has always had very poor CQC ratings, but I have seen many with a high standard of care as well as being well maintained.

I don’t think there is a reliable loop hole no.

Also if they are not self funding, the council only pay a certain assessed amount which is not much so the likelihood is that you, the family, may want to pay top up fees from “your” money anyway.

If you don’t like the system then lobby your MP and/ or vote for someone who is actually going to address this issue.

So I agree with OP here. DH grandparents received state funded care, had no assets and both went into nursing care (at different times) and their home went back to LA - family didn’t worry about fees/ assessments etc. My grandparent had to sell their house to pay for nursing care- ironically went into the same home as DH grandparents and once the cash had ran out moved onto state funded care- in the meantime had to have multiple assessments to check for funding etc which caused stress on the family.
Both parties received exactly the same amount of care, same meals etc yet one paid their entire life savings £250,000 + whilst the other was funded from the off.

It just seems very unjust - regardless of morales. Someone works hard, pays into a pension, has a home or assets and is unable to leave their family something to reflect that. Where as others have lived off benefits, or a very low income, no pension other than a state pension and no assets and still receive the same level of care (which they entirely deserve we should not have segregation in the standards of care) however it leaves you wondering whether it’s worth saving and having assets when your old … as you will be looked after regardless 🤷‍♀️

Well you'd be wrong then

I haven’t got confused
Im aware of how both work

We’ve been through this, see my above post

As I said OP couldn’t use this anyway but councils can’t afford ( or ours can’t ) to fight proof of deprivation of assets in court. Which they would have to do unless parties admitted it.

So
Whilst many websites say they can go way back to check where a persons money has gone

• they can’t go past 10 years with the bank
• they can’t fight you in court because they have to prove intent. They can only really do that if at some point around the transfer of ownership a parent ( asset owners ) we’re told they needed care ( with proof by others ) or / and their health was declining that it would be reasonable to assume they would need some care ( again GP/ doctor proof ) and
• there was no one else available to provide it.

Like I say we went through this to a degree
but it was in 2012

As far as I’m aware the local council still needs to prove intent unless this has changed

I think I will have that Porsche after all. I am nearly 70, and It's something I have always wanted. That wouldn't count as deprivation of assets, if I needed a care home in 10 years time, would it?

It is absolutely unjust.

The question is the best way forward. Do we sell and rent while in our fifties, do we hedge our bets and hope with stairflifts etc we can manage at home? Maybe do the 50/50 tenant thing?

Selling to pay for care should cause everyone to be outraged.

I haven't read an inheritance thread quite so disturbing as this one. Your parents aren't in need of care as yet, but you're still plotting how to get the maximum money out of them after their death. Nasty. If my elderly mum needs 24/7 care and I and my siblings are unable to provide it, then her house will be sold to fund the care she deserves. Your moral compass needs adjusting.

My parents don't want to sell their house

Nobody wants to spend their money. But surprise surprise they have to.

Care home fees can be enormous. My late DM's fees were 1200 pm - that's a lot to find. One's parents' possessions are not one's own, and one has no right (unless it's an entailed title and land, I guess) to inherit from them - they might leave the lot to Battersea Dogs' Home, and would have every right to. However, forward planning is always a good idea. OP's DPs need to see a solicitor if they are worried. A solicitor will say what is legal and also possible to do with an inheritance.
NB My late DM had no property to sell so there was no inheritance to 'grab'.

This is helpful. We need more posts like this!