Fed up of reading threads asking how they can get out of paying care home fees.

[Nextdoortomeis]

As per the title.
I'm sure lots of people would like the state to pay care home fees.
But we don't live in a fair world.
Both mum and mil paid nearly £70k in fees
yes I didn't want to pay but I also wanted them to get the best care in their later years.

Everyone has to pay to live somewhere be it rent or a mortgage.
The NHS simply could never afford to pay for everyone.

Die at home in a puddle of your own waste then, but don’t expect us to pay for it. It’s like saying “Wah wah wah, I’ve paid tax all my life so why should I pay for food?” Paying tax doesn’t entitle you to help yourself to everything for free if you’re wealthy.

It’s demoralising for someone to lose all their assets to aged care. They would have scrimped and saved making good financial decisions all for it to be pointless. I have no problem with my taxes going on aged care for other people.

I agree with this. It's the same as hospitals in America charging inflated fortunes to insurance companies because they know they'll get it.

They know they can drain assets to the threshold so they do it as quickly as possible to ensure they get as much money as they can before the person passes away.

Fair, equal prices I have no issue at all with.

Absolutely this! An LA funded resident generally pays half the fee that the privately funded resident pays. It’s simply not fair - each should pay the same. I am definitely doing all I can to ensure that my family benefit from my hard work and sacrifice!

The care home my Dad would have been put in if he had not been paying his own fees was awful.

I could not care less about my so called inheritance, it was his money and it paid for his care.

As Taylor would say ...conservatives gonna conserve....

In many cases the family could always have their elderly relatives at home.

I agree OP. This country just feels like everyone wants their arse wiping for them.

People who think that by self funding they are going to get 5* care are mistaken. You get the same care and the person sitting next to you funded by public money only you pay more. Unless you are mega rich of course. If you're just a regular home owner forget it. I think, if possible, it's best to stay in your own home with bought in care.

That’s not strictly true though as self funders have the choice of settings.

I can understand to an extent, because chances are that as a self-funder, you’ll end up in the same care home as someone who’s funded by the state. The system is fucked.

You’re being very naive.

@Anonym00se I absolutely agree with you.
This is why old folk can end up clinging on in their squalid home, isolated and lonely. So their relatives can benefit. Mind you, if they all agree then the relatives need to provide more care than the standard 4 visits or have them move in with them.

It isn't extortion though, it is paying for a service. If you don't need care don't pay for it but if you do then you pay. Obviously it would be lovely for it to be free at the point of use but we would need to pay much more tax for that and people don't want to.

You can sign your house over then as long as you live another 7 years you're fine. In fact it's a sliding scale so we'll worth doing

There used to be NHS geriatric wards. A friend's grandmother was in one for 16 years. They were closed down in about the 80s I think.

This thread just sums up why we need a major review of social care funding in the UK, and reminds us that both Labour and the Tories before them have happily kicked that particular can down the road. If you intend to vote Labour, Tories or Reform in future, then you need to be talking to your MP/potential MP about this issue and what their party intends to do about it.

Nb. I do agree with PP about the inconsistencies and unfairness in the system.

My friend's parents smoked and drank themselves into very poor health. Council fully funded their care. Left a purchased council house >£200K to my friend as inheritance, in full. In contrast, my Mum worked all her life, paid her taxes, looked after herself ... and, guess what, no funding support, house sold to pay the fees, and no inheritance to pass on. It's grossly unfair to the average person.

These was an owner of a group of care homes in an interview recently and he admitted that if they know someone has a lot of assets they increase the weekly quotation for care.

it IS extortion - many are private, for profit businesses run by very wealthy individuals.

Yeah but you can at least choose . I work in the care sector. I’ve visited many. But there are good ones. You just don’t get as good access to them if you aren’t paying.

A solicitor told us that councils can look back a lot longer than 7 years for deprivation of assets.

Who do you think should pay though? Genuinely?

It’s social care that pay for care homes ( unless in a nursing home then it might be either or both )

The obvious answer in avoiding Care Home fees is to look after the person yourself.
I speak as someone whose DM was in a Care Home for nearly 10 years with severe dementia before she died. And yes the money from her house went to pay the fees.
I did NOT look after my DM myself, as a) I would have had to give up my full time job (which would also affect my work pension) and b) it is really impossible to look after someone with dementia without help, and frankly a Care Home was the best thing for her.
I think the annoying thing is that those who have a house (described as self-funded) pay MORE than those funded by the council (social services), as the council do NOT pay enough to meet costs, so they are subsidised by those like my DM. This is the most annoying aspect of it all.
In the past the council used to have their own homes (many years ago), but they cost too much and these all seem to be private now, thus making a profit.
We all hope that we would be someone who did not require a care home, and I do not know the percentages that do.

On the one hand it is great people are becoming more aware of the fact that social care is means tested. On the other hand it highlights the inequality in the system.

Care has always been self funded. But in generations gone by, life expectancy was much lower, people lived with infirmity for much shorter periods of time. We had communities and families that could provide care at home, and the reality is we relied less on "commercial" care. These days it is very different. Very few of us can provide wrap around care for elderly relatives - either because we work, or because their needs are more complex due to advancing age. And local authorities can no longer afford to run their own care homes.

However, we still have a care system set up for the 1940s, with even greater demands placed on it in terms of the number of older people and the level of care and support they need. The reality is, the Local authority or NHS fund a very small proportion of care needs and that number is diminishing as the bar gets ever higher.

Do what you want re: your own inheritance but my advice - start planning for your own care in your 40s. By the time the vast majority of us require care, there will be next to nothing funded publicly. Unless we start to raise taxes... which is an immediate vote loser and successive governments have dodged.

Nope. You’re thinking of inheritance tax, not deprivation of assets. When it comes to a potential case of deprivation of assets, the local authority have a team who will go through every aspect of that person’s official life (bank statements, medical records etc) and can go back as many years as they want.