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

Where would the money come from do you think?

The benefit system is there yo help those who cannot help themselves. Its not meant to be a free for all.

Move them in with you and take care of them yourself?

Yes if it's done in latter stages of illness. However it it something all homeowners could look at to prevent paying when renters get it free. So sell up and rent when in good health or, use equity release schemes.

Homeowners should not be penalised like this.

Because she’s worried about her inheritance.

Plenty of people here saying 'why should I pay for care when people who have spent all their money on cruises etc get the same care'. They don't. I looked round many homes for one of my parents and the difference between places is huge. If you have money, you get choice - and jazz nights, day trips, really good food and better staff. Otherwise, it's the place with the dirty fishtank that smells of pee.

But government run services are so inefficient and rubbish. Usually end up paying more for less quality.

The issue is that if a person requires clinical nursing care due to cancer or motor neurone disease, the state pays the bill. If a person needs clinical nursing care due to advanced alzheimers/dementia, the state does not.

One systemic disease should not be excluded from government funding.

Have they severed the tenancy or put the property in trust? I have heard of people doing this but either way, if one of your parents needs care then someone has to pay - people cannot keep relying on a broken social system that is already on its knees simply because they want to leave money to selfish, cash grabbing offspring.

Even if you do it 'early' in your life it not's straightforward, and the Council can investigate, without time limit.

My friend's parents were asset rich but cash poor - a large house in a good area, but were cash poor with small pensions. Their solicitor advised them to document everything, setting out clearly that the reason for transferring the ownership was because the original owners could not afford to pay for upkeep, maintenence, repairs or utilities. The dc then had to keep records showing that they paid for all these items, including gardening, and they also had to charge their parents a fair rent.

Just giving the house away and continuing to live there as before could have been considered (by the Council) to be DOA even though the parents were 'only' 65 and had no health needs.

Taxes.

Do you think homeowners should have to pay for their hospital care? If not why should they pay for social care via selling their home?

It is a two tiered system and I encourage anyone to do whatever they can to prevent having to sell their homes to pay for care costs when others get it free.

Means testing for care in their own home, fine. If someone has 50k savings no one would dispute that but selling a home should not be considered for 'funding' imo.

So you want everybody else to pay for your parent's care even though they have assets, just so you can inherit?

I inherited from my mum because she passed when she was too young to need a care home. Be thankful that you've had the time with them and their money is there to make their old age as comfortable as possible.

I'd rather have had the extra years with my mum than had any amount of inheritance. You don't know how lucky you are to be in this privileged position!

Downsize now into a retirement village or retirement scheme - both my Nans did and lasted until 90 and 98 alongside paying for care etc.

extra care was the retirement scheme my Nan did - I think she half owned/half rented. The half owned bit was ringfenced and on her death bought back for the price she paid by the owners. The rent went towards her care or something like that

neither had dementia and both had the benefits/state pension as well to cover care

the retirement flat my other Nan owned was outright and she had a one bed flat a cleaner someone who shopped and caters going in plus a warden and then ground rent that needed paying

I have just lost my nan, who has used her savings and home to pay for fees for the best part of 2 years after succumbing to dementia.

Yes, it was a lot of money, but it meant we were able to decide where she lived - a lovely, small, privately run home, close to her hometown. If Social Services had been involved, she could have been placed anywhere in the County, we would have had no say at all.

I understand the thought of 'losing' the money is hard, but if it goes towards paying for a home for their most vulnerable years, I think it is right.

My understanding is that if the home is occupied by then both, then it will not be required or counted towards the cost of fees should one need care but one stay at home, though that may not be accurate (my Nan was a widow, so lived alone).

You could look at it in a different way - if they decided to move to Warden/monitored accommodation, or indeed into a retirement apartment on one of those nice complexes, it would still cost them money, and potentially require annual fees and/or in-home care.

I totally get where you're coming from. Of course, my family had similar discussions. But ultimately the home my Nan lived her days out in was just that, her home, and though it was expensive, she was cared for, loved, well fed and very comfortable there - her life of hard work and managing to own her own home supported that and enabled her to live out her final months without any worry.

a will won't help, it only becomes active after the person is dead.

I agree that increasing taxes would be an alternative.

However for me the best place to look to raise taxes would be IHT and gains on property. So a similar overall effect to taking the money from any property and savings of the person needing care.

You can put it into a trust of some sort, my aunty did.

But why would you want your parents to have less so you can have more? You’re only protecting their home so you, and maybe others in your family, can inherit because your parents can’t take it with them.

Personally, I’d rather my elderly parents had the nicest final years possible and I didn’t inherit a penny. You get what you’re given when someone else is funding the care home and quite often LA funded care is very basic whereas there’s some lovely care homes available if you’re self funding.

Adult social care now accounts for more than 40% of the expenditure of local authorities, and with our ageing population, this is only going to increase. Whilst in an ideal world it would be great if there were the funds to pay for social care for all adults who need it, the cost would be crippling. Someone suggested an increase in tax- the tax burden is already higher than it's been in generations.

What proposals to the tax system exactly would we need to make to fund this enormous care bill?

This stuff cost Theresa May her majority.

My personal feeling is that there should be some kind of policy augmenting employer pension schemes where you pay in a certain amount, it attracts income tax relief like pension contributions and it is invested and grows, maybe like an old endowment policy. If you die without needing care it could pay out a sum to your estate.

Just an idea! That way you are incentivised to save for care contingency and your estate could still benefit.

That’s in your area, but the general picture is that across the country, many (but not all) self-funders are receiving the same care in the same homes as people who haven’t self-funded, so don’t kid yourself otherwise.

How many of the funded residents actually spanked their money on gin and world cruises though. Or were they people who worked hard on low paid jobs or who suffered ill health or couldn't work because of care responsibilities? I think you'll find 99%+ were in those categories.

Op doesn't seem to have come back...

If you move into a care home, that IS your home.
Your previous family homeiss then a second property.

If I buy shares in a company I'm really passionate about, and they appreciate massively, but I dont want to sell them due to emotional attachment, then what makes that wealth different from property? I feel the same about IHT on property being separated out from the rest of the estate.

Of course it's unfair that some medical conditions have funded care but others don't. But how can we either (a) pay for everyone who needs it, or (b) refuse to pay for anyone's care needs?

This. As a previous poster mentioned, often by the time you are looking in to all of these options, it's too late. Thankfully my Grandfather sold his property after my Grandmother passed away unexpectedly (their plan was to downsize anyway) and went into rented warden controlled accommodation.
He gifted my father, sister and I our 'inheritances' whilst he was still alive from the proceeds of his house and thankfully didn't need care until 8 years after this. He still paid all of the care fees himself - over £2000 per week. His life savings were coming to an end just as he passed away from terminal cancer after being in his care home for close to 2 years.

When the financial assessment is done for care they will look back over several years and will recognise a deprivation of assets. You could end up I'm a very difficult position if you try to move money round to avoid care home fees.