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

Clearly
Some have their assets taken off them
and
Some don’t

Not exactly a fair system then, is it !

Not all people that rent are poor.!
They just don’t own a property.

Before I bought I owned many art pieces. Worth a lot. I didn’t own my home though but I did have assets.

I was also on a good salary with savings, just not a property owner. So not poor.

I have cousins that are wealthy but chose not to buy property as they like moving around and can’t be bothered with the hassle of property. Not poor.

Poor is when you have nothing. Not so many people have absolutely nothing.

I know it's notoriously hard to get. The film I mentioned concerns a woman who had a stroke and never fully recovered. Her two daughters had to fight really hard to get NHS CHC.

I knew of a woman in recent years who was awarded NHS CHC for dementia and, presumably, another condition(s). She had it for a good couple of years, and then the authorities removed it! This was despite her condition(s) getting worse not better. Her DD was fighting it and then sadly her DM died. Not sure if her DD ever got to the bottom of why it was removed.

Well some of us were happy enough for our parents to pay for their own care, and what are your parents going to need all this money for in their futures? Why do you think your family is so special that they shouldn't have to self fund and that the rest of the taxpaying public should fund their care? People like you annoy me very much.

Just because a home is private it doesn’t mean it’s better. Our local authority sold off many of the homes to private companies and only a few left. I work in the health and social sector and have been into both private and LA funded care homes. There is good and bad for both.
The local authority ones often receive regular training and I have found that the staff have been there long term.
The Bupa owned one near me has been under scrutiny and was recently rated inadequate which is what people have been saying for a while. They have a high turnover over of agency staff who do not know the residents and are struggling to recruit full time nursing staff.

Your parents will have had to sign over their house to you atleast 7 years ago, before the house can be used to pay for care fees.
Nowadays people have the right to stay in their own homes with carers coming in etc, unless they are a danger to themselves or others.
I was an inspector of care homes and nursing homes and except for the odd one l always said l couldn't let my parents ever go into these places. Both my parents have now passed and l looked after them both. I wanted too, l had a wonderful childhood and now it was time to look after them when they needed me. Not saying it was easy, lt wasn't but so glad l did.
If your parents do need to go into care, it has to be paid for somehow.....Social care is o n it's knees, just like health care. The money has to come from somewhere.

Yes the problem with this is some conditions accelerate past being able to be cared for home ie dementia late stages for example. This is very difficult to be cared for at home so a lot of people need 24 hour care but you are right the standard of homes is shocking.

My late MIL got her care covered because she was held under a Section. She was moved from a secure unit to the dementia wing of a nursing home with the care still being paid (she had been cared for at home until the Section with her husband on his knees asking for help from SS), and then as she settled (drugs and progression of her condition) the Section was lifted and the council were going to stop paying. At this stage she was in the last weeks of her life, bed ridden, not eating and drinking. I don't know what conversation her husband had with the council but they actually didn't remove the funding for those few weeks. Maybe the paperwork and admin would actually have cost more than just carrying it on for a few weeks.

Totally agree, there aresome medical conditions that need 24gour care. As l mentioned in my post, if people become a danger to themselves or others then it it a different matter.

I don’t blame you at all. I assume your parents worked all their lives and paid taxes etc. why should people like them have to sell their homes (potentially) to pay when people who have never worked or lived on benefits all their lives get everything for free.

Agree with everyone else it is their money not yours. However make sure it is split 50/50 as then if one goes in home first the other is protected.

They're still alive, so the money is theirs to spend on them and their bills. It is not your inheritance until they die, no matter what you may think.

I think Noononoo put it well earlier. I don’t min d paying for my care but I do think it’s unfair for there to be virtually nothing left to pass on and for councils to be subsidised by those paying. A cap to a reasonable level would be fair (£86,000 was mentioned in Boris’s ovenready scheme) or a percentage of assets. We’ve had several enquiries but nothing is done.

I knew of a woman in recent years who was awarded NHS CHC for dementia and, presumably, another condition(s). She had it for a good couple of years, and then the authorities removed it! This was despite her condition(s) getting worse not better. Her DD was fighting it and then sadly her DM died. Not sure if her DD ever got to the bottom of why it was removed. A person can require less care if they become worse, eg a person with dementia who needs 24 hour supervision will be easier to care for once bed-bound

The £86000 excluded “living costs”. I worked out that it would be about 3 years till the cap was reached and meanwhile the “living costs” would have been paid. So for most people it made no difference - people either would have died before the limit was reached, or would have already used all of the proceeds of the house sale f they lived outside the SE.

Your parents will have had to sign over their house to you at least 7 years ago, before the house can be used to pay for care fees. Can you explain this?

Do you also feel it’s fair for 35% of what you pay in care fees to be filtered off to pay for someone who is being subsidised by the LA? On top of what you’ve already paid in general taxation?

I think the 7 year thing is to try to evade IHT not care costs as has been said. A percentage cap would account for regional property price differences.

@Watermelonsuns you can look into at-home care, or lived-in care, this is an alternative to care homes. I don't know how much it costs, it is very common in some countries. Unless your parents have generous pensions that cover living expenses and have some left, it's likely you and/or siblings will have to fund it. But it will protect your inheritance.

@Watermelonsuns Should your mother be frail and end up living in an extended family - Something else you might look at is what your GP provides in terms of visiting nurse/home care should your mother become ill. Then that can be added to in terms of purchasing extra care. (Assistance with bathing etc and loan of a bath hoist). That assistance doesn't need to be a registered nurse, why not a motherly older woman eg retired nurse or midwife looking to supplement a pension?

I've had to check out what is available in terms of assisted living, and it is surprising what can be purchased, even from Amazon. There is also local authority assistance. When my sister broke her hip, the local authority provided all sorts of grab rails and frames, and were going to install a stair lift, that was refused unfortunately. If enough funds are available, there are even lifts that will take a wheelchair. (Thinking of those which go through the ceiling).

Another option is a garden home, a chalet type annex. This would need planning permission???

Enabling older people to live at home is much much cheaper than putting them into a care home and paying extortionate fees. Even so, it all takes money some way or other, and heaven help those working on narrow margins.

It's quite a dilemma and I don't envy you. Good luck, I do hope you find a solution. Your mother and father are lucky to have such a thoughtful daughter.

You are utterly selfish and uncaring You are plotting to steal your parents money for your own benefit for that's what deprivation of assets is Given your head a wobble and put your parents needs first

To be honest, you need to plan ahead for your retirement many years in advance, occupational pensions etc…

I am aware that my Husband and I may need private care as we get older so we plan to downsize our house on retirement to a small two bedroom apartment (possibly in a city centre location) and use any leftover money to help our children if they need it (see the benefits of our help while we are alive and well and ensure that they are ok).

If we need to go into a care home the rent money from the apartment should help fund it along with pensions, in the interim the cost of heating and maintaining the apartment would be less expensive than our house so we should be able to keep saving for private care after retirement. If needed the apartment could be sold.

I hate the idea of my kids struggling one day over an issue like this? and why people when they retire want to hold onto a large expensive to run house!

It would be nice to leave them some money, but there are memories, photos and keepsakes that we have gathered that are much more valuable than cash that they will inherit either way, and we will of course ensure that we help them throughout their lives.

I would also be devastated if my kids were only interested in grabbing as much money from my estate after my death than ensuring that my husband and I have a good quality end of life experience with our our money and assets. I would also be disgusted if they used nefarious means to do it which is potentially fraudulent, and burdens an already stretched and underfunded Social Care system.

To be honest OP seems really heartless to do this!

Stupid people voted for these policies and now expect others to lose their life savings because of it. Do whatever you can to lighten the load. There are ways to get round it but I won't explain on here I'm afraid.

Of course it's fair, that's what living in a capitalist society with a welfare state brings. Those who can should pay so those who can't don't go without support.

My dad is in NHS CHC. A few years ago my mum was there too.

In both their cases they went into hospital and it was deemed they couldn't go home and then they were discharged to the nhs facility. This seems to me to be the way people realistically get in to CHC.

In fact, neither of my parents were at death's door, though in both cases the hospital doctors thought they were. My mum had dementia and was living at home with my dad, but then she took a UTI, became confused, was admitted, had a hear attack, developed covid, was left really impaired. She was now too impaired to go home or into a care home but she lived in the NHS unit for 14 months.

My dad was given days to live after being admitted last month. They wanted him to go to a hospice but therexwere no beds available so they found him a place in the same place my mum had been. He is still there, has perked up quite considerably, is sitting up watching tv.

I'm just mentioning this because imo if the assisted dying bill was in, they would have been offering him that when he was diagnosed as dying. And they were wrong.