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.

No. And you have to have capacity at the time of death. Good luck if you get dementia.

We paid 48k a year for a decade (resi, not nursing care). It came out of renting out his property and his final salary pension.

His care home fees were significantly more than our joint monthly income.

What the care home got from the LA in fees was significantly less than that per person, so the people paying privately were having to pay significantly more to subsidise the LA residents.

Apparently that's fair...

There is no pot of gold. Taxing the wealthy needs a world wide agreement otherwise it will be as effective at raising funds as it was for the French. The wealthy leave or do other thing to bring down their tax burden, like working less.

Ok let's put it another way are you going to means test any other treatment for a terminal illness?

Dementia isn’t the inly reason people go into care homes though

It's very common to assert our readiness to end our lives if we get dementia, especially if we're in any way familiar with its cruelty. But by the time it has taken hold, it's usually too late to recognise it or do anything about it.

Money buys you choice!
DF was in a nursing home following a severe stroke for 18 months before he died
He was self funding and although we got the nursing element - didn’t get full continuing health care until he was end of life
DB and I paid the top up fees - it was worth it to get the quality of care he received and also due to location saved us money on visiting (we took it in turns to visit every day)
DM has Alzheimer’s and is currently in sheltered accommodation with a care package - eventually she will also need nursing dementia care home unless she dies first from other causes
We fully intend when she does to fund the best option for her - even if it takes all her savings and we have to top it up as well
Through my job I regularly visit homes for the elderly and there are only a few I would consider for my loved ones

This thread makes me despair.

I'm a care worker with over 30 years experience, and I'm damn good at my job.

All these people with wealth behind them, trying to find ways to avoid paying for care.

Do I pay for it then?

My mother worked her fingers to the bone, but was poor all her life. She worked shifts in a children's home, and had a second job cleaning.

What is this narrative that the people who own homes "worked hard, and scrimped and saved", and that those who don't own "pissed it up a wall"?
This is a total fallacy.
Generations of poor people have worked hard, for very poor wages.

I honestly despair.
No wonder there's a recruitment crisis in the care sector.

My Grandparents did that transfer the house thing but my Dad and my Auntie ended up caring for my Grandma when my Grandad died so no care home was needed.

I've told my Mum & Dad to enjoy their money and even though they own their house what will be will be.

I'd rather their money goes on care as I'd probably be traumatised looking after them. We aren't rich but I can cope without inheritance. I might get some though.

Keep the house and let all those that are going to benefit from the inheritance provide the care. You get care in your own beautiful home, they get their richly deserved entitlement of inheritance and intergenerational wealth that keeps this generation of inflated property prices going, taxpayers don't pay for your care and can pay for somebody elses care.
Everyone's happy.
Wonder where the weak link might be in this great plan.

No they can't. They could try, but they won't as it would be an expensive thankless task.
They have to prove (not just think, but actually prove) that these gifts were made with DELIBERATE deprivation as the main reason and at a time when the need for care could be reasonably foreseen. Obviously any decision can be challenged up to ombudsman level.

MIL was in a care home for 2 years before she died recently after a series of falls meant she could no longer walk and was unsafe at home. Dementia worsened in the last 2 years of her life meaning she needed care in a home. Her and FIL (who passed away many years ago) had always worked and never claimed benefits but because they lived in a council house and had no savings LA funded her care.
As she didn’t self fund her care there was limited options available. The care home was ok, a rather soul less place but the staff loved her and tried to make her time there as happy as possible.

A friend has recently had to put her Dad into a care home - he has savings and a house which will need to be sold to fund on going care. There seems to be a big divide and I don’t know what the fairest answer is

I could never see my mum going in to a care home, nor would she want to.
She has younger family still at home and plans for them to still stick around as they don't look to be going anywhere anytime soon. If they didn't, then either me or my sister would have her with us.
The glossy brochures don't show the true sad reality of these places and the fees they charge are extortionate. The carers looking after the residents in the homes are often on min wage, so its the care company bosses that are coining it in.

Without getting into the ethics of whether it's right or wrong to try to avoid care fees, just thought I'd pip in about practicalities, as there's a bit of confusion in some posts about what constitutes deprivation of assets. The key factors are timing and intent.

You can do what the heck you want with your own money without it bring classed as deliberate deprivation, so long as it is done at a point in time when you could not reasonably expect to need care. Age UK has some excellent information about this. I'll pop the link below, but here's a quick extract

"The timing is important. The council will look at when you reduced your assets and see if, at the time, you could reasonably expect that you would need care and support. They then have to decide based on all the case facts and clear reasons, which could be challenged. If you were fit and healthy, and couldn't have imagined needing care and support at the time, then it might not count as deprivation of assets"

It's absolutely true that councils can and do look back further than 7 years of bank statements - I have worked with older people where this has definitely happened. But if a financial decision was made 20/30 years ago (eg you need care at 70, but you set up a family trust or gave away money to family when you were 40 and in good health) you essentially have a sort of plausible deniability, that you could not foresee that you would need care later down the line. This is the motivation behind a lot of family trusts etc. If you are inclined to go down that route, forward planning is needed

Whereas If you made those financial decisions at a point in time when its reasonable to assume you might need care (eg advancing age, or developing certain health problems) - it will almost always be noticed and tagged as deliberate deprivation. There are specific departments within the LA who do the financial assessments, you have to provide any documentation they request. If you can't do this yourself, they'll ask a family member or allocate someone within their team (an appointee) to do it. The sums of money involved are huge, so they are highly motivated to be thorough.

You receive funded care during the assessment period (which you do not have to pay back, regardless of the outcome of the assessment). But once the assessment is done, if you are over threshold, the care is chargeable.

And If during the assessment you are found to have deliberately deprived yourself of assets, the council will charge you for your care as though you still had the assets. If you are unable to pay, they ave statutory powers to recoup the money from any beneficiary. I don't know how that works, but I know it happens

Anyway... Here's the Age UK link.

www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/paying-for-care/paying-for-a-care-home/deprivation-of-assets/

The people with serious wealth will pass plenty on when they see fit, cars, uni fees, house deposits, holiday treats. Or just because.

It's the working classes I really feel for who's entire wealth is tied up in their fairly budget house. The people made frugal choices to try and save a deposit, to get their own place. In the hope when they die they'll have an easier retirement something to leave their kids and grandkids.

The system does seem designed to keep those people down. Wipe out their entire savings.

Plenty of people feel like this until the sad reality of experiencing day to day care of a loved one with dementia. Or motor neurone. Or MS. Or parkinsons.
When you've lived through that, come back and say you could never use a care home.
The majority don't want to use a care home. It's a heartbreaking decision but often the right decision and the only decision

@Cosyblankets
I'd agree. Nobody wants to go into care homes but there is a limit to what family can cope with.
The burden often falls on women, who are also trying to work pay their mortgage and often still have kids in school too.

Very unfair to put the burden on the youngest siblings too, where's their opportunity to meet a partner and create a life for themselves?
If you met someone who was a carer for a dementia patient, anyone with sense would run a mile than be tied down to that.

@Menobaby79most people think this way but when it comes down to it someone who is 80 plus with dementia and other issues needs specialist care and handling. My sister colluded with my mum in keeping my dad home and he ended up being hauled round in an unsafe and undignified manner. It was horrible. None of us were trained to deal with his dementia or incontinence. And that was just the start. Good homes and good care give dignity. Bad care doesn’t.

So they can.

It has been explained to you many times the reality of the situation but you seem to refuse to grasp what deprivation of assets actually means. Anyone can say any money/property given is a deprivation of an asset, but it has to be proved to be the case, they can’t just say the property you gave away 15 years ago is deprivation of assets when you was 50 years old, fit and well and didn’t need care until 78. Not sure how to simplify the explanation further for you to understand it. I think you’re intent on trying to spread misinformation or scare people into not moving their property into trust for their children.

Let me guess, your parents were not forward thinking enough and you lost your inheritance to care home fees, so now have a chip on your shoulder that everyone else should loose out too. Get over it.

There’s a big difference between having wealth, and owning a fairly inexpensive home. Lots of older homeowners live on small incomes and have minimal savings. They may never have earned much, but felt they were doing the right thing by buying a home when they were younger. Measure them against someone who may have earned more, but prioritised holidays or cars, or any other spending. The home owner has to pay, and even subsidise others who don’t. If the government allowed them to keep a reasonable amount, it would be fairer.

I believe good care workers should be better rewarded, especially as the owners of privately run care homes seem to do very well!

There should be a two tier system for those who can pay and those who are funded, There are already premium versions but there is needs to be a core range for self funders and then a value/basics range for those funded by the council. That would eliminate the wrong incentives.

Very well said.