To think it's unfair to sell your home to fund care when older while others pay nothing.

[SonnyHoney]

I provide healthcare services to older people, which means I regularly visit care homes. It’s something I find quite upsetting at times. I see individuals who have worked hard all their lives, paid off their mortgages, and are now facing care home fees of around £2,000 a week.

Meanwhile, others are living in the same care homes with their costs largely covered, aside from a contribution from their pension.

I say this as someone from a working-class background and daughter of an immigrant (El salvador) who has had to work incredibly hard to get to where I am financially. I’m also very aware that one day my own parents may have to sell their home to fund their care.
My mum, for example, has run a cleaning business for years, she’s up early every morning and has worked long, physically demanding hours. She hopes to pass something on, but realistically, I feel it will likely be used to cover care costs .

Before anyone says “Why don’t you just care for her yourself and keep the house?” And of course, if I’m in a position to do that, I will. But the reality is that with older age, there can come a point where needs become too complex, and care at home is no longer possible.

Obviously, those who don't have houses to sell need care and have to go to a care home, but my point is it just feels unfair, really.

How precisely do you know about the lives of all the other residents in the same home as your grandparents? After all, most of them are in there because of dementia so are hardly likely to be able to tell random visitors what they’ve been doing for the last 80 years!

I don't think you meant to mention me. Because I've a sneaking suspicion if you read my posts you would consider me very unreasonable indeed.

My mum didn’t pay anything for her care home fees as she was granted CHC (NHS) funding due to complex medical needs. I always found it odd that she didn’t have to contribute anything. You would think a contribution towards board and general living would be reasonable in those circumstances if it is for those with the means to pay who don’t have complex care needs.

The 7 years thing doesn’t apply to care home fees. I think that is an inheritance tax thing. A LA can pursue fees if they think or rather can show there has been a deliberate deprivation of assets in order to specifically avoid care home fees. How long ago is irrelevant. It’s about intention.

Greed?

Its not strictly seven years. The local authority can look back further than that if they suspect deprivation of assets.

'To answer your question would I sell a car to pay for hospital care? If i had to, yes, of course. If the alternative was poor hospital care and I had the means to get better care then my car would be a price worth paying.'

You don't get better care. You get the same care as the person in the next bed who hasn't had to sell their belongings to pay for care.

We all need to plan well ahead fo stop this happening. Sign homes over, put in trusts whatever. Just do it before old age and frailty.

I would rather not have a two tier system where the lazy / feckless / unsuccessful get everything for free and those that do well at life pay for everyone. That goes further than care fees.

We need to do it well in advance true.

Why on earth do he lose everything ? Unless your mum was the only person named on the house deeds and savings they would only have been able to take your mum’s share of savings into account and they can’t include the marital home in the assessment for care costs while a spouse is living in it.

Part of the reason to save in your working life is to provide for your own care when you are elderly if you need it. Care homes vary massively, the ones the council are fully funding aren’t the plush ones with the nice food and the homely surroundings, they’re the really basic ones and they could be likes from where the person lived previously, where their families and friends are.

People who have assets and cash in old age are not worse off than those who don’t. They have choices, those with fully funded care have very few. I know which I’d rather have in my old age. I’d also rather my parents used the money they worked incredibly hard for to buy themselves comfortable, high quality care if they need it, even if it means there’s no inheritance left.

I wonder what will happen when the government (whichever is in power) runs out of other people’s money, because people have decided enough, and that they aren’t going to bother saving for retirement anymore only to have their savings stolen to give to those who don’t bother themselves. How do they get out of that mess.

Some of them very vocal about how much better they'd had it/ work was for idiots etc

Really @TheStepboardisfullofbitteroddos ? How terribly shocking. These wasters all seem proud of themselves, don't they? Like all the benefit cheats that boast to all and sundry about their cheating. Awful.

The seven year rule doesn’t apply at all for care costs, lots of people confuse it with inheritance tax after a substantial gift. As you say, the LA can investigate back as far as they like.

My MiL boasts often about how she’s getting her accommodation for free when ‘him next door is paying x amount.’ Some people really are that entitled.

Not true. In many cases the LA fund care in homes alongside those funding themselves, and the care standards are exactly the same for both.

It is quite unbelievable, isn't it?

That’s definitely unfair. And it’s also unfair that as a self funding dementia resident you pay more than the council pays for the residents it funds.

A terminally ill cancer patient gets all their treatment and care funded. A dementia patient with money has to pay for their care AND subsidise the cost of the non paying residents. I reckon my mum is paying c£20k a year subsidy for people funded by the council. That’s despicable. Care homes should be legally forced to have one price for all residents whether council or self funding.

There are very very few council run care homes these days

Nearly all are private

The plush ones are for the super rich taking a tiny % of the population

The majority are in private care homes with a mix of council and self funders

‘Council-run care homes in the UK make up a small minority—approximately 3%—of the total care home sector, with the vast majority being privately owned or run by charities. Data indicates around 583 care homes are run directly by local councils, with about 16,566 total care homes in the UK, reflecting a significant shift away from public ownership.
carehome.co.uk +2’

Most people with assets have the same choices as those who don’t. ie a place in a care home that has an empty bed.

How awful of her

You need to be careful not to fall foul of deprivation of assets rules. If you give away money or assets at a time when you have a reasonable expectation of needing future care the council may treat you as still having that money if they take over funding at any point.

They can. But let’s say I decided to sell my home at 60 to go and live on a cruise ship; and give my son his inheritance early as a gift towards a mortgage. Let’s say £200,000. Twenty years on, how is the council going to decide that was to avoid care home fees I don’t even know we’re coming and not just a gift towards a mortgage - which it would be. Because I’m not planning on needing care. I don’t assume I’m going to need care. And 20 years is a long time to make a decision upfront just to avoid care.

I think it’s unfair if people earn plenty of money and spend it on having a good time but then require the state to pay for their care in old age, I don’t think it’s unfair that people who have had very little get their care paid for in old age.

I’m not sure how you stop the first case without draconian rules or insisting on much higher taxes and then paying back to everyone the equivalent of care home fees in old age - which I don’t think people would vote for.

I totally agree with you. I worked in home care back in the 90s and was appalled to see people who had worked hard to have a nice house and saved for a pension, sat with coats on, worried about paying the heating bill and having to pay for the care.

While another person would be on benefits in a council house, going to bingo 9 times a week and not having to pay towards the care. (It was £16 a week in 1999).

it angered me then.

We are at the point of selling parents house, and yes it is unfair. They worked hard all their lives, have a bit of money put away, but that's nearly all gone. Mums in the same home as a several people who rented all their lives, and council pays their fees. In effect mum not only paying for herself, but covering the shortfall of others. If she did not need 24/7 nursing care and 2 people to lift/move her i would have her living with me.

Nope - it’s just if you have assets greater than x amount you have to fund your own care.

But maybe this government will expect people who work to pay direct for schooling if they earn over a certain amount. They do live for that stuff.