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.

This. Doing exactly the same.
£2000 per week btw is about £12 an hour. For 24/7 care and monitoring. Food, heating, lighting, laundry, cleaning, staff costs wages, uniform, maintenance, insurance, gardeners, equipment, council tax, etc etc. I paid more than that in nursery fees twenty years ago!

Not for her. She always said this was her plan and why she didn’t want to work. Because the government would take it all anyway. So she let her kids suffer instead. She had an inheritance at one point, her mother’s house, and she sold it and got rid of that money within the year. Didn’t think to help her children out with it though.

Not all terminally ill people will have all of their care fully funded. In some cases nursing care alone is funded but ‘hotel’ type fees are not. It depends on the prognosis and whether the need for care is primarily health related.

Well because of the unfair system, that’s exactly what I’m doing. Blowing my money, year on year having £20,000 worth of holidays annually. Because there is no way I’m working my whole life, just to save, so I can pay for my own care and the care of others in my old age.

Not sure if somwthing got mixed up along the way in your case, but they dont count the property as an asset if there is a spouse still living in the home. The value of the home would be disregarded from the financial assessment

So essentially you are following your Mil's example?

Only if you already have something larger than a small flat to downsize from. These with a small flat who have to sell it for care home fees may have no deposit to offer their kids by downsizing and then leave none to inherit, either.

Yes, someone else pointed that out. My mistake

It’s based on when you give the assets away - your age and any health conditions are taken into account. If you dispose of assets at a time when you have a reasonable expectation of needing future care, it’s deprivation of assets. For example, my mum signed over her share of our jointly owned home to me 15 years ago, at the age of 79. She continued to live in it but just didn’t want to be bothered with any decision making etc. A couple of months before she died earlier this year she was assessed for care and we were told that if she wanted residential care she would be treated as still owning half the house for the purpose of the fees, because at 79 she had a reasonable expectation of needing care, so it was treated as deprivation of assets.

Very foolish because you may never need care and you're throwing away money that could be used to make your old age very comfortable.

Have I read this wrong? You’re saying the OP is unreasonable, yet you’ve received money from your parents already?

I think that was the poster’s point. They rented so (half) their savings and, presumably, the mother’s pension were counted in the assessment and they had to pay. If that money had been in Invested in a house it would not have been counted and she’d have been cared for for free.

If you sell your house and give some, or all, of the proceeds to your children and then need care home facilities you can be taxed under the deprivation of assets rule.

This.

This is why I don’t have a pension - that money goes into DS’s savings - big downsizing/equity release when I retire- use that money to live.

Plus if you give money to children now (adult children) dont they pay tax on the gift over 10k or something?

No she said her dad lost everything including their house
He shouldn't have lost their house if he was still living in it

This!
Saving money during your life is to give yourself options, it shouldn't be just about leaving an inheritance.

And surely it's better to support your children when they need it e.g. when they are trying to buy a house/pay off loans or pay for childcare rather than just keeping it for inheritance?

Only if it was reasonably foreseeable. Which the courts generally seem to interpret as meaning that you would need to already see a deterioration, at the time you give the money, that needs or definitely will need care.

You're right. Most people won't need residential care.

Highly unlikely, Llama. They are interested in folk who might be much later years than you who are maybe starting to struggle at home and who suddenly hands their offspring large chunks of their savings or downsize and gives the proceeds away. THAT would clearly raise suspicions.

I’m heading towards 60 and plan to help my two DC with a deposit for a property in the next 5 years. Not likely the council will come after me when I’m 80 shouting “deprivation of assets!!”.

I like the cruise ship idea btw!

But if the savings were in joint name and over the threshold she would still have had to pay until she dropped under the threshold, and any income in her sole name would also have been assessed. It’s also important to note that the joint marital home is only disregarded while the spouse is living in it. If they die or go into care themselves, the house is then counted towards the fees. And if they remaining spouse downsizes then half of any profit will be assessed for care fees for the partner in care.

I agree totally, but as people get old, their taste buds change. My DFIL craved more sweetness and carbs in his last days, because those were the last taste buds that failed. It was his body seeking the maximum nutrition, which was needed for repair. The desire for sweetness is the last to shut down.

Yes its unfair but until there is an insurance system it is what it is ... None of the political parties want to prioritise these things that people really care about - social care is drastically in need of change.

So those people who pay high rent don't work hard? Only homeowners?