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

wrong and wrong. Its not a criminal offence and there is no 7 year cut off. Here is the straight poop. https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/paying-for-care/paying-for-a-care-home/deprivation-of-assets/

There isn’t an actual choice though, is there?

The benefit system exists to help people who can't help themselves. So care is 'free' for those who haven't had such a fortunate life.

Plenty of people fiddle the benefit system though. Sounds like you want to give that a go so you can keep your inheritance.

In my experience, the only people who persuade their parents to transfer property to 'avoid care home fees' are those who end up dumping their parent in a council care home at the first opportunity. And the children are then suddenly unavailable to provide care that would have enabled their parent to stay in their own home for longer.

At that point, there is nothing they can do about it because they've signed over their house and it's legally no longer theirs. They can't insist on staying in a house that isn't theirs. They can't downsize and use the spare cash to pay for care. They can't use equity release to pay for care at home. They may have anticipated that the children they gifted their house to would reciprocate care at home but there is zero obligation on the children to do this. Should be criminalised in my view - in the same way that mis-selling etc is treated as fraudulent.

Yabu. If you move their home into your name they have to have done it 7 years ago and pay you market rent. The gov is very on top of what you suggesting. Pay for care like everyone else has too

there is NO 7 year cutoff! https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/paying-for-care/paying-for-a-care-home/deprivation-of-assets/

The idea of a comprehensive National Care Service, on the scale of the NHS and joined-up with it in terms of things like commissioning and making it much easier to stop bed-blocking, was proposed by Jeremy Corbyn in the 2019 Labour manifesto. That suggests to me that the idea was that the rich should pay more, one way or the other.

And it seems to me that it can be done, using a combination of progressive income taxes (people who don't have money to put by lots of savings tend to be in lower tax brackets) and also inheritance tax — which is currently far lower in the UK than in much of Europe — as an equivalent of care home fees.

Really it comes down to whether we think that the risk of a long, slow decline in old age is one that society should cover, or whether the individual should plan for it. It's very comparable with the risk that you might need many years of complex medical treatment. We have decided that in a civilised society, that risk should be shared across the population rather than borne individually. I am no fan of Corbyn, and I am often wary of state involvement in things, but I think it's possible to make a good case that the risk of needing assistance to live for 10+ years is one that should be spread out socially.

My relative lived very frugally with a war time make do and mend philosophy, they scrimped and saved for their old age.
They ended up in a residential home at £1.5k a week, and that was nearly 10 years ago so god knows what it’d be now. Most of the other inmates were self funded too, but there were a few others there at the tax payers expense.

Is it fair that you can’t spunk all your assets on gin and world cruises and then just let the tax payers take over? Maybe at retirement we ought to take out insurance policies to cover future care.

Personally, we intend helping our kids with uni fees, house deposits, cars, holidays etc so our assets deplete as we age. It’s too late really to start giving assets away once your at the needing care stage.

Exactly this. I'm going to make sure my children understand that my and DH's assets might not go to them.

You make your own money in this life, OP.

@Watermelonsuns

My DF was urged to go into a Care Home; his existing Home Care company, GP, nurses, & DB & me all thought it best.

Stubborn old bugger refused & stayed at home. Care visits were upped to 4 times daily (he paid for it of course), & it was less than half of the cost of a Care Home. He also had good neighbours who helped.
I think that's the only way to do it to save cash.

We are in a similar situation. Whilst I am gutted my parents house will need to be sold to pay for their care fees and I am very interested to hear from the OP who they think should pay the care whilst they enjoy their inheritance.

@Watermelonsuns so who should pay for their care?

Either pay the fees or do the care. I don’t really understand why people think they can have it both ways.

The legitimate way to avoid care home fees is to care for your parents yourself.
Move them closer if needed, arrange your day to fit in 3x visits to their home to support with dressing, washing and meals.
Do the work yourself and you'll have every right to feel entitled to the ensuing inheritance

A friend was advised to change the title deeds of their home from a tenancy in kind (ie they both jointly owned 100% of the property) to a tenancy in common (ie they both owned 50% each). Apparently in a TiC, if one of them became ill, the council could not require them to sell their property to cover medical/care home costs as they did not own it in entirety and a second person owned/resided there. It would offer some protection if one parent has to go into care. If a parent then dies, the will should leave their share to DC, but observe the lifetime interest in the property of the surviving parent/resident/owner.

People may question whether that is moral, but that’s for you and your family to consider. Personally I would do it if their home is their only asset and you want to protect it for the other parent.

This, it is an absolutely unfair system. If someone has bought their home they have to sell it however f someone has rented all their lives they get exactly the same care in the same home fully funded.

As others have said DOA is obviously a thing so we're looking at transferring the deeds to our dc well before we enter old age and this will become an issue. Too late for you op I know but what about looking at one of those equity release schemes so your parents can benefit now and then if in the future it has to be sold to cover costs then there wouldn't be much left?

Imagine if people had to sell their homes to pay for hospital care! We've paid tax all our lives there is no way it is fair that homeowners get stung like this.

Another way is to sell up and rent although that is of course a massive upheaval but worth it to keep the capital.

I disagree that more taxation will fix the problem. Our services are all provided by private companies who want to make a profit. This is the same whether those services are paid for by taxation or by an individual's private funds. Every time profits are put above providing the services. This is why we don't get value for money in the UK, whether for dentistry, veterinary, utilities, etc. The more tax we pay, the more will be taken out for profit. The companies that provide care in the UK make an obscene amount of profit. We pay more and more in taxes and get less and less in return. Then we are told there is no money for services because of immigrants. Immigration makes the UK money. If we can fix the model whereby we pay a fair amount for good quality services without that money being creamed off into the pockets of the rich then surely we can fix ' broken ' Britain. But no politician seems actually interested in working for the good of the general populace.

When a person goes into residential care, the local authority finance team will assess their finances.

The property will be taken into account but only after the remaining spouse dies. Then the property will be sold and any fees paid by the LA will need to be paid back.

Savings are halved, and only the half of the person going into residential care will need ti be used to pay for the care.
The self funding limit of £24500 still applies.

It may be that people can manage at home with home care and telecare equipment to support.

Your parents, or you if parents consent, can request a Care Act assessment. A worker will be assigned to complete this assessment and advise on options.

The same people who pay for hospital care, us! The population pay, through our taxes. If someone in a rented house can be fully funded so can a person in an owned house,

hmmm. to anyone who is reading this check the facts..... I have a feeling that if its a tenancy in common then the council can put a charge against the half of the property that is owned by the person who goes into care and its repaid when the house is sold. Also I think the deliberate disinvestment thing can still apply in that changes made when its known that care is likely to be needed, can trigger it. Its not something that can legally be avoided as such because what the council actually do is calculate their contribution as though the disinvestment had not happened which leaves a shortfall in most cases.

I think you can get some sort of will done that ring fences a certain amount of property/assets from being absorbed via care fees. I would have them speak to a solicitor.

But at the point of the assessment for care, the local authority will look at that person’s finances, see the house sale, see where the proceeds went to and that capital will be used to pay for the care, no if’s and no but’s. So I don’t see how this ‘successfully’ solves the issue.

You could move in with them or have them move in with you and provide their care yourself. This would prevent the need for care home fees. It is also a great responsibility and is not for everyone, and assumes their care needs can be managed in a home setting long term.
Depending on their needs, you may still have to pay for additional care. You may also have to pay for adaptations in their/ your home. It may impact your ability to take on paid employment, and carers allowance is pitiful.

Supposing if you pay 100 grand for a year of private care, 40 odd grand is taken in profit by an offshore company somewhere. Wouldn't it be better if you paid the government to provide care and profits could be ploughed back into the system? Wouldn't this be a better model for all our services? Or am I being really stupid and naive?