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

You’re right that most havd been sold but IME the nice ones won’t accept the LA rate straight away.

What they will do is if the LA assessed that your care should cost £700 but you prefer a £1200 home, and you are not self funded, you can take the LA contribution then the family can top up the extra £500. But if you don’t have your own assets and your family can’t pay you’re stuck with home which only costs £700.

If you’ve been in the £1200 home for 2 years and the top up fees then run out my understanding is that the home may then come to an agreement to just accept the LA rate, but there’s no obligation on them to do so.

But it’s very risky to get rid of your assets if you’d like some choice over where you end up.

@DrPrunesqualer I haven’t got confused There is no 7 year limit associated with the financial assessment for care homes

So that's the point - I have mortgage paid and some very modest pension which will allow me to leave on. My motivation to continue working would be to help my DC.
If I know that my house and additional savings which I can accumulate by working some extra years will be taken by care fees for the same care which someone else will get for free, then I'd better retire now and enjoy life whilst I still can.
As PPs mentioned above, super wealthy aren't affected and those poor ones are paid for as always, it's the middle ones are screwed, as always.
If many middle/higher earners make the same decision and retire much earlier, who's going to pay?

I don't know if anyone has said this yet, but it is my understanding that there is a cap on how much of their assets someone will have to pay towards care home fees. If what I have been told is right, once they have got £25,000 left, they don't have to carry on paying - so whilst their relatives may not get all the inheritance they were expecting, there will still be some money left.

I don't have personal experience of this but when my aunt had to go into a nursing home, my cousin (her daughter and only child), let her house. The rent covered the fees.

That is an idea. Obviously the house would have to be in good repair.

My cousin and her husband redecorated my aunt's house and had a new washing machine, other than that it was fine, the heating worked, the cooker and fridge were good and the bathroom and shower very nice. It was a three bed terraced with garden, no garage but parking could be on the paved front. They let it furnished (bought some new, cheap furniture), and it was let within a month to three nurses. After my aunt died the house had gone up in value so they did all right, as well as providing decent accommodation for three nice young women for some time

Just a thought.

It may not be necessary, my mother and my mother in law stayed in their own homes to the end, many people do and I hope that is the case for your parents. However it is good to be prepared.

I used to specialise in this area.

You have probably left it too late now. Anything you do will be scrutinised carefully and they will be assessed as still having the assets even if they are now in your name.

Make sure you have POA on both of them.

I have two uncles (on my late DM's side). Both fairly well educated, both inherited a reasonable sum of money in their forties. My DM inherited nothing because her father didn't believe in women inheriting. The younger of the two lived fairly modestly, worked hard, was never frivolous, paid off his mortgage at 59yo and retired at 65 living on his state pension and a small private pension. He's had to sell his house to enter a care home.

His elder brother blew his windfall, hasn't troubled himself too much with employment, had lots of support from what he calls "the State" aka the taxpayer. Has rented all his life, had some fab holidays, won and lost money on his hobby, gambling. He's now in the same home as his brother the only difference is not having saved or bought a house, it costs him nothing. His younger brother while not bitter, is wondering why he bothered.

My cousins, DS and DD of the younger of the two brothers are now planning to sell their houses and go into rented properties, with a view to spending money on great holidays, nice cars etc so there'll be nothing to pay for their care. I hate to say it but I do see their point.

My grandfather owned 9 rental properties.
Between his care, in the 1970s, my Grandmother's and my father's, all the money went.
Nothing left for my generation.
Why should you be any different? This is nothing new.

Haven't read the full thread, so apols if this has been mentioned.

Does anyone remember Andy Burnham's so-called 'death tax'? The idea was that the government would introduce a one-off charge or levy, to be paid by individuals as part of their estate after death. I can't remember how it worked, but let's say for example, anyone leaving an estate of 50k was exempt and then after that, on a sliding scale, you paid a small percentage. Maybe 5% if you left an estate of 500k.

The proceeds were intended to fund the social care system, so no-one ended up in this situation.

It was absolutely decried by the Conservatives, labelled a 'death tax' and was quickly shelved. But actually, what that would have meant was that the burden of care costs fell equally on everyone except the least well off, but you wouldn't ever need to pay it in your lifetime. It would have removed the total 'lottery' nature of care costs as they currently stand, where if you're unlucky enough to get a degenerative brain disease like Parkinson's or dementia you may well end up spending hundreds of thousands of pounds on care, but if you have another type of illness that doesn't require that type of care, you're fully funded by the NHS.

Because there are no insurance policies you can take out against the risk of potential care costs in the future, it is currently just pot luck whether you end up in the social care system and pay £000000s vs the NHS and pay nothing.

Personally, if I was leaving an estate of £500k but 5% of that went straight to the government as a 'death tax', I would be happy. I'd still be leaving an estate of £475k after all, and even if I'd never needed any care whatsoever, I'd have lived my final years in the knowledge that if I had needed it, it was covered by the system set up with the proceeds of the tax.

Obviously that's a brief and simplistic overview and there are all kinds of caveats, but I do agree with the general principle that the burden of care costs should be shared equally by society, not just the unlucky few. And if you're not even alive to see that money being paid out, it's not really an issue, is it?

@Watermelonsuns

It is very unfair that if a parent goes into a hospice with cancer then their savings and home are not touched but if they need into a care home for Dementia then the government expects people who have saved and worked hard to pay themselves yet people who haven't are taken care of.
Because hospice care is for the dying. Dementia care could be for 15 years.

Why is it that people suddenly think the world owes them when they are old? What happens. They accept that we pay our way the. Suddenly when old they suddenly take on the attitude of forces of a better phrase benefit scroungers and it becomes all 'I've paid my taxes. The world owes me'

You don't suddenly deserve to be looked after just because you are old. The taxpayer isn't their to provide your children with an inheritance

My maternal grandmother had a stroke in her 50s which left her incontinent, unable to form coherent sentences and unable to walk or eat meals without aid. She had no assets so she had to go into a state-funded care home. I don't think she was expected to live much longer, but ended up living another 20 years despite suffering several more strokes. She was in a number of different care homes throughout that time and they were all horrible, filthy places that often failed to set up her bidet in time. One day my grandfather arrived to visit her and found her slumped in her chair, and without going into details had been dead for some time. The home hadn't noticed, so clearly hadn't offered her breakfast or come in to help her wash, dress or tend to her toileting needs.

In contrast, my paternal grandmother was self-funded and it was a lovely environment where all her needs were taken care of, and more.

It's like when people talk about how unfair it is that people get benefits and ask why they have bothered to 'work hard' all their lives when they could be getting paid for sitting on their arse instead, yet quitting their jobs and burning through their assets in order to live the life of a benefit claimant strangely never appeals.

We really don't.

The poster's experience was 13 years ago for a start.

There is no 7 year limit as they keep stating.

Local authorities are a lot more aggressive about this now because they can't afford to pay for people's care.

But this is no different from people of ANY age saying 'why should I work when other people get it all handed to them in benefits. Its weird. It's like suddenly when people get old they develop the mentality of those on benefits they have derided their whole lives

If you specialised in the area what is the best way forward? What age of owners is best to tf to dcs? Is it just a straightforward transferring of names on deeds or is it best to go through the selling process for a nominal sale price?

Their basic health care needs are met, what won’t be met since they have financial assets are social care needs, ie from daily carers or in a care home.

I understand what you mean about those needs funded by say a ring fenced increase in taxes or national insurance, but that is something for the future, and god help the government which suggests it, as it is pretty clear that even the cost of the NHS as it is isn’t being covered by current contributions, let alone asking for social care costs to be taken into account.

However what the op wants to do is to get her parents care paid for, even though they have the means to pay for it, so that she won’t lose out on her inheritance.

good luck with that one @Watermelonsuns , sounds like a loving thing to do, to sneak your parents into the cheapest home your local authority will fund while you make sure you pocket the inheritance.

Your parents will have got the value of their taxes in many ways throughout their lives already. I doubt they've paid enough for years of care home fees on top of that. It's fair enough to sell the house when they're no longer living in it and need to find a roof over their head and decent care elsewhere. They can't use the house if they're in a care home so the only reason they need/want to keep it is for your inheritance so no need being faux naive about that. You're bang out of order sniping at people lucky enough to have cancer so they get free hospice care ffs. Well here's hoping your parents get cancer and enjoy all the benefits of that! No one wants cancer or dementia but these are realities that need paying for and your parents don't get to opt out of that.

I used to work for a local authority and some folks had put their homes in a trust to their children to avoid paying care home fees. They had done this years prior. It did work for some folks. But this was a long time ago and councils have wised up.
It is the system that is unfair and needs updating.

PP keep using phrases like “stuck in a LA home”. There are very few LA homes. Most people funded by the LA are funded to stay in the same homes as self-payers. Obviously LA sets a limit on what it will pay, so the most expensive homes will be out of range. But there’s no clear link between quality of home and cost. A more expensive home will probably have better facilities but not necessarily better care.

what having private funding will do is

allow more choice of home, eg one which makes visiting easier
allow you to go into a home when you think you need it, rather than when the LA thinks you need it
pay for some to do shopping, cleaning, gardening etc(none of which is paid for by the LA) and enable you to stay in your home for longer

They will be assessed for their care needs and may get funding or at least fnc and attendance allowance, if they have complex needs or end of life care they may get chc funding. It's not based on illness but how that affects someone's ability to look after themselves and their needs.

Once they get down to around that amount, they start tapering the amount you have to contribute until savings hit £14,500. That's the amount you can still have.

In reality they take savings and pension and benefits to pay for care, and leave the person a small allowance (forgotten what it is), so if the person in care needs anything that costs more than their allowance you'd either pay for it yourself, or have to keep dipping into the £14,500.

Such holier than thou posters on here!
using CAPITALS to berate the OP for daring to even think about her inheritance - evil money grabbing witch. They're not YOUR assets, they're THEIR assets. (Yes, we get it)
(I presume said posters will be perfectly happy to leave their kids diddly squat.)
Also not all parental relationships are perfect and not all parents are saints. Guilt tripping posters who only want their parents in a five star luxury care home and shame on you if you want anything less!
The sanctimony on this thread is so sickly I feel as though I have just eaten a while pack of DM's Worthers'.

And that's my point exactly

It isn't true either. LA's can and do go back more than 7 years.

7 years only applies to Inheritance tax - which not everyone is liable to pay depending on the size of the Estate

Why should you be any different?

To learn from mistakes of your grandparents? and examples like two uncles above?

Time to leave this thread now - I am off to transfer this years allowance to DC's and then fritter away my savings on wine, holidays and handsome young men