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

What else are they going to spend their money on? A frail octogenarian with dementia is hardly likely to be going travelling in 5* resorts are they? Other than care where else is the money going? Oh yes, grabby offspring.

I can explain it, its not true! Straight poop here https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/paying-for-care/paying-for-a-care-home/deprivation-of-assets/

ok 7 year thing NOT TRUE https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/paying-for-care/paying-for-a-care-home/deprivation-of-assets/

why not?

@Snakebite61 - stupid people don't realise that living longer has consequences. The State cannot support us all.

It's a very good question, @funnelfan - I definitely would not to be more of a burden to them, but I guess I would look to manage paying for what I needed so I wasn't a burden but it wasn't costing too much either. And there's a part of me that would rather I was struggling than them - but practicalities would have to win out over that sentiment.

Exactly. If you have a home that is no longer suitable for you to live in you sell it to fund somewhere that is suitable.

I think it’s the lottery element to needing to pay for care which makes it seem unfair.

Most people’s parents won’t need to move into a care home and all their estate will pass to their children.

Some people who have never thought of themselves as rich will get dementia and all their assets will go on paying for their care.

If they had got a different medical condition the state would pay for their care and again all their assets would go to their children.

That’s the lottery. It isn’t just “rich people must pay”, it’s “some rich people, including people who don’t think of themselves as rich, have to pay”.

A fair system would be a national insurance system with a progressive tax system so that those who can afford to pay gradually more than those who can’t. It should be an insurance model because not everyone will need it. Just like I pay house insurance in case my house burns down. We don’t say, tough luck your house burnt down, but you have a good income so you can afford to buy a new one with a mortgage.

And because anyone could end up needing care, the govt should be establishing the insurance system and that would cover everyone (to cover the point made above that disabled people wouldn’t be able to get insurance.) That’s the only logical solution, and they need to get on and do it.

We don’t say the NHS is free for everyone unless you are a rich person in a car accident, then you have to pay for your care yourself because you are rich. And oh by the way when we say rich we mean anyone who owns their own home - you can always sell your home/downsize/take out equity release. This would be outrageous.

And yet that is what we say to old people who have dementia.

You are right but at the same time I think lots of us vaguely assumed that, for instance, if life expectancy increased from 75 to 100, then the healthy and active portion of life would increase by a similar amount. I.e the health and vigor that you felt aged 45 would extend to 65, etc.
What appears to happen is that most people become frail in their late 70s or early 80s.
If we could arrange things such that that everyone focused on optimal health for all of their life (I know that's not realistic but please indulge me with my thought experiment🙏🏻) we could perhaps push back the age at which frailty sets in??

It's not a lottery though, it's

Users
Can pay does pay
Can pay but not for long pays what they can for as long as they can then the state takes over
Can't pay state pays

Non users
Everyone keeps their money, individuals and state

Those are the rules, there isn't a lottery there

Op have you considered emptying & renting out parents home to provide a regular source of funds to contribute to care home fees?

I do think people have to accept:

• providing more care within the family
• allowing older people to decline more rapidly rather than seeking to preserve a long term state of frailty
• renting out properties to contribute to care costs
• saving a separate pot to contribute to care costs

So someone rents all their life paying £1500 a month. Someone else pays a mortgage £1500 a month yet because they have bought their house they have to sell it to pay for health and social care when the renter gets it free? This isn't about a welfare state it is about people making different choices and those who rent don't have to sell their belongings to pay for care so they on earth should homeowners?!

Maybe some people don't want to spend it on anything and instead want to bequeath their assets to their children (or whoever) - did that never cross your mind?

The obvious solution is that landlords should remortgage all their properties and use the proceeds pay the care home fees of their tenants.

So in summary we can transfer to our dc but it must be when we are young and fit so it doesn't look like fees are being dodged, or we can change tenancy to separate from joint to protect half. Are these the only 2 options?

Those are choices you make knowing how life may go. No one is entitled to an inheritance.

The lottery is whether or not you get dementia!

That’s the main condition where you have to at some point go into a care home and self-pay. Not everyone, but that’s the majority of self-payers. Without dementia, most would choose to stay in their own home.

Which they are entitled to do if they don't need state support to manage their lives. Why should the tax payer foot the bill so someone can inherit a £500k or more house? I refuse to pay more taxes to support wealthy people retain generational wealth.

I think it’s a very common thing for caring people to say they want their parents to use their own money to ensure they are comfortable, and at the same time want to help out their own children.

I do think we need to rethink what helping our own children means though in this context, and accept it’s ok to act in a way that previously we may have thought of as selfish. I think it’s ok to assume our children will want for us the same as we want for our parents - for us to use our money to make our lives comfortable and to get help. We know that has the additional impact of delaying the burden on our families.

i personally view mine and my siblings inheritance from our parents to be our upbringing and the encouragement and moral support to make the most of our very different talents. There was never much money when we were young so their time and love were what they could give us. I feel fortunate when I know so many others were not so lucky with their parents. If there is any money left over from mums care home fees, it will be entirely due to them buying a house in the right area 50 years ago that has rocketed in value.

Wise words, @funnelfan.

Very wise.

I think that if you transfer a house to your children you have to pay them the market rent to live there, or it will be seen as deprivation of assets. Someone with more definite knowledge may correct me about that, but I think it's the case.

There are also complications with changing the tenancy, as you only own half of your own house, so have far less to spend on care. When you are young, you may be more focussed on not paying at all, but when faced with a choice between a decent home and a more cash-strapped one you may feel differently. Also, most people don't need care, so if you are widowed and want to move house or downsize, again you only have 50% of 'your' asset to use as equity. And if the child who inherits it from your spouse divorces, or dies then 'your' property can end up owned by an in-law, which could work out in a number of ways.

That's quite a sad story. Am glad she was still funded for the rest of her life.

We had the sad story this week of Pauline Quirke being diagnosed with dementia at the age of 61. Last week a good friend of mine told me her friend that she goes out with quite a lot has been diagnosed with dementia at the age of 67. Such a dreadful disease.

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?

Protect them for YOU, you mean.

If you don’t want to let your parents use your inheritance for them to live comfortably then move them in to your home.

I am in favour of assisted dying, but I can absolutely see where you are coming from.

Back in 2001, I was told my DM was probably not going to make it, but a week later she was well enough to be discharged from hospital, but wasn't well enough to live on her own any longer. She lived with me for a year (I was a single parent with two young children), and I had carers come into her twice a day to help with getting her washed and dressed in the morning, and help get her ready for bed in the evening - I put her to bed myself at 10.30 every night. Sadly, after a year, her condition deteriorated and she needed four double-up visits from carers every day. At this stage, it was no longer practical for me to have her at my home because it just wasn't fair on the children, particularly as my home is open plan and she was sleeping downstairs. She then had to go into a care home where she lived for a further two years before she died. It broke my heart to put her in a care home, and if I had been living on her own I definitely would have kept her with me, but my main responsibility had to be to my children.