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.

I am aware of that. The care home have stated that they expect dad to stay with them due to his needs. They deal with this day in, day out and have never had a resident leave them due to lack of funding.

I would happily have my 93 year old mum with dementia pay the hotel type fees as she would pay for a roof over her head and food if she was a sprightly and able 93 year old. She has had dementia for 12 years, was diagnosed 7 years ago, was in a care home for almost 3 years and now in a nursing home. The recent move triggered a CHC assessment. She was graded as having the highest need possible for cognition and communication and the second highest needs for mobility. She is doubly incontinent, has been partially deaf for decades but can no longer tolerate wearing her hearing aids, has aged related macular degeneration as well as regular old age eyesight deterioration but can no longer wear her glasses.

But the CHC assessor said that as she has no primary illnesses and can still feed herself (not that well apparently as she only weighs 5st 10lbs) she doesn’t qualify for any help with paying her nursing home fees of £1,700 a week.

This.

I hate the underlying narrative to this thread that anyone who gets their care home fees funded must have been lazy, feckless, absolute wasters, unsuccessful etc etc. All words that have been used on this thread.

I’ll visit dignitas if possible so my house isn’t taken on care fees. I want my kids to have the money.

To a degree I suppose so. However, I am working incredibly hard, full time, making sure my money is used to look out for my son first and foremost, then myself and husband.

My Mil looked out only for herself and didn’t ever work. She took took took from the beginning and never looked out for her children.

There seems to be an assumption that children have some sort of "right" to inherit their parents' assets. They very definitely do not, unless the parent dies intestate (without having made a will). If they have made a will - perhaps leaving everything to the Cats' Home or UNICEF or a kind friend, or whoever - then the children may inherit zero.

And the people that didn't work and buy a house or save?

Isnt it what we say NI for?

You can't disinherit your children in Scotland.

It’s not actually I worked in a nursing home and the people who paid got the choice of the better rooms and the people who didn’t pay got the basement rooms.

The point is they wouldn’t have the savings if they were invested in a house.

Of course renters work hard, the fact is they dont have to sell anything to pay for care. So there should be some kind of system in place, if you rent you pay an extra heath and social care tax to cover care costs.

I think it would be a fairer world if there were no inheritances at all, actually. People with well-off parents have often benefited during their lifetime, either financially or from growing up in a stable environment. Now that many people own houses and may be able to pass them on to their heirs, it is one of the factors that has fuelled house price rises and is a huge factor in financial inequality. If you get an inheritance, you have a substantial deposit, or maybe you can buy outright. If you don't, tough shit.

Of course it would never happen, as even if the government decided to make the very unpopular move of blocking all inheritance, the rich would find a way round it, as they always do.

But you can make a will that doesn't include them. Yes, they can challenge that will and win, but it's not automatic that children will get money.

Ha! And do you get it back if you stop renting, or does it get credited to your estate if you fall off a very high cliff at the age of 30 and don't require care?

Well I went around nearly all the ones in my county looking for my MIL and again in Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire for my dad

both self funders
you were shown whatever room was empty

A person dies a room becomes available …simple

It’s how NI was sold to the population. But we’ve known since the 80s that it was not a sufficient amount for all the things it was touted as covering. Anyone who is retiring today and thinks that’s what NI is supposed to cover is willfully ignorant.

Sing it loud and sing it long!!

Not where I live. You end up in the same nursing home but pay a bit extra to help subsidise other people who are funded by the local authority. When your assets diminish to a certain point ( I think it’s £23,000) the local authority takes over payment. If you go back historically it’s because Social Care is descended from Poor Law legislation and not from health. Most people in nursing homes these days are actually ill. I don’t know what the solution is as it’s not affordable to provide free care for everyone but the present system is unfair to people who have been in lower payed jobs but struggled to buy a modest house or payed into a pension.

My grandmother spent the last 8 years of her life on a care home. Most of it was LA funded. Let me tell you a bit about her.
She was the youngest of 13 children and left school at 14 to work in a weaving shed for 12 hours a day. She married my grandfather at 17 and had to give up her job because she was married. She had 2 children in quick succession not long before the outbreak of WW2. My grandfather spent 6 years fighting in the war whilst she, and many of her friends, had to work in munitions factories, her children, my mum and aunt, were sent away as evacuees. He struggled to hold down a job due to injuries incurred whilst fighting in the war, but they never claimed any benefits.
She worked on and off until she turned 50 then once again had to stop but this time because my grandfather developed Parkinson’s Disease. When he died, she turned 60 and wasn’t able to work because of her age - most employers wouldn’t take on retirees, especially female ones. For the next 15 years she spent every single day fund raising for the local hospice who looked after my grandfather in his last weeks. Over that time, she raised £50+k whilst taking care of her sister who had dementia. Eventually, she went into a care home at 92, living to the ripe old age of 101. Her savings totalled £20k, I became her NOK and ensured as much of her fees were paid as possible. She was a very proud, hardworking woman but according to your take on this, you’d assume she was lazy / feckless or careless.
Shame on you.

Why would the pps post relate to your gran
clearly
it doesnt
and as we move away from the time when women were expected to give up work when they married less and less pensioners will be affected by that sexism.

Children have automatic legal rights to a share of movable assets including cash. What they would have to challenge is a share of any property.

Maybe in Scotland. Not in England and Wales.

Yes I know they have legal rights. But it is normal for people to leave everything to their spouse and for the children not to challenge that. If I leave 100k to my husband on my death, the kids have a right to 1/3 of the net movable estate, but crucially they do not get that money unless they exercise their right to claim it. I believe, though I could be wrong, that most children do not exercise that right.

You can regarding property, they can make a "legal rights claim" on "moveable assets" stocks, cash etc. a single child would get half these assets, the other named persons in the will the other half, if the child challenged the will that is.