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.

As someone whose mother had to sell her house to fund her care in a Care Home, it is actually worse than that, as the council do not pay the full cost, and therefore those (like my mother) who are 'self funded' actually pay MORE than those funded by the council.
Due to changes in employer NI contribitions, and min wages, etc, I expect costs will go up, if not already.
(I am not against the staff being paid a proper wage, but it is the Care Home, who make a profit, by having as few staff as possible, and all on minimum wage).
I actually am not against a person's house having to be sold, but at the time, all her assets could be used, up to the last £23,000, an amount that had not changed for many years. I am not sure what it is now.
My personal belief is that this amount should be upgraded to a more realistic sum, such as 50,000. This would still leave a substantial amount from the value of the house to pay for the care.
As a family we did our best to care for her at home, but frankly, if someone has dementia, it is not possible to care at home. The elderly person will need 24 hour care (at least monitored). The care home had hoists to lift her out of bed, etc, with two trained carers, though even then, she had not been out of bed for 6 months before she died. (The Care Home said that a proper bath exhausted her too much).
Another annoying thing was having to provide toiletries. Frankly, I would expect a Care Home to provide basic toiletries, and the elderly person only required to provide 'nice' toiletries, but this is not the case. Also, the staff will use the items provided for other residents, if they don't have any themselves.
My mother was in different care homes, the first home was an emergency placement, so temporary; the second home asked us to find somewhere else after 3 years, as they were not really a dementia home, and by then, her dementia had got worse, so 3 homes altogether, so we know this applied in more than one home.

The financial aspects of the care act are mis-understood, no one has to sell their home in their lifetime to pay for care.

If they are married, and their spouse continues to live in the home, its not counted towards their fees, ever, so long as the spouse is still living there at the death of the care resident.

Similarly the same applies in several other cases:

A relative (including in-laws) who is aged 60 or over

A relative who is incapacitated

A child under 18.

Again in these cases, provided that person is still living at the address at the date of death, no account is taken of the value of the home, no one comes knocking for the cash after death, this is called a mandatory disregard.

If none of these situations apply, the local authority must offer a deferred payment plan, a lifetime loan, secured against the home, to be settled post death.

All these provisions mean absolutely no one is obligated to sell their home in their lifetime.

Sadly I've seen many circumstances where poorly informed people have sold up, when doing so has made them liable to pay fees that otherwise would have been deferred out of their lifetime or not applied!

Most people's assets are property. So most of the money will be from house prices increasing and nothing to do with working hard, being frugal etc. I won't be receiving any inheritance, why should I have to pay more taxes so other people can?

Shocking comment,have reported!

Sorry? The price should be the same for residents. Local authorities should pay the actual cost. Local authorities should be funded sufficiently to do so.

The people that would pay for this are the ones that are currently working their butts off to pay for their homes. Which they then gave to sell to pay for care. Point being, it's the ones who never work and don't contribute that get everything paid for so why would they pay into a special insurance? The welfare system in the UK is ridiculous and I totally get where OP is coming from.

Why? Why do you need a lump of money if you're living in a care home? Why do you need it after you die?

The ones who “never” work tend to die younger so don’t need care or pensions. Those who live long enough to need care and don’t own a home are those who work bloody hard in minimum wage jobs and spend their entire lives stressing about paying rent. The latter absolutely deserve tax payer support.

Don't assume that anyone that has property to fund their care actually worked for it. Some get property handed to them on a plate.
My aunt married a man who inherited serious £. Both their children (my cousins) are in their 30s and never worked a day in their life. They each had a house built for them.
One does a bit of volunteering. The other just parties all the time and is a nymphomaniac.

It must be bollocks. I mean, they said there are 3 million care job vacancies. There is not even a 3rd of that for all job vacancies.

Agree ! So many people have worked just as hard but didn’t earn enough to save for a mortgage. Many people live in rented throughout their lives and certainly don’t have the luxury of early retirement.Most younger people now will only get on property ladder because they have bank of Mum and Dad to give them a leg up .

Why is it shocking? It is a completely expected next step if we legalise assisted suicide.

Do Dignitas go round care homes, and get pointed to the people who did not happen to fund their own care?

Exactly this !

Yes, however this is horrendous given that you could have had assets you worked extremely hard for worth 250k+. I appreciate that many don’t have this and so use the state, and don’t think that’s a bad thing at all. But how can families ensure continued social mobility and security for their children with such a pathetically low figure to be kept safe?

Your aunt's kids situation is hardly the norm though is it?

I don't think it's unreasonable to contribute but the system needs improvement. MIL is in a care home, it's £5k a month. Husband and I work long hours and she has dementia and started wandering, we couldn't care for her at home.

We tried to keep her at home with carers but cheaper carers that government use were next to useless. We found a more expensive company that were great but we just couldn't afford it without selling her house.

We looked at lots of care homes, cheapest was around £850 a week but it was awful. Most were around £1k but again not great. We put her in a nice place and she's happy there, but shes still fairly young and the council won't fund it so it's a worry what will happen when the funds run out. It's only slightly more per week than council funded but it's much better.

Better quality home care is needed and something needs to be done about care costs, £5k per month is unsustainable if you develop dementia at a young age.

No, but there is the assumption on there that anyone who has property must have worked hard for it.... and that people who do not are lazy, spongers, unsuccessful, absolute wasters etc, and there are words that have been used on here.

The LA sets the fees they will pay to the care homes. The organisation I work for (charity) is getting 3.8% average increase for the current financial year- some of these are higher, some haven't been increased. I don't know the self funders' fee increase % .

The fees paid by LAs are too low to cover the costs of delivering care. There was a performance review of homes and those that were under performing were either sold or closed if a buyer for the home couldn't be found. These homes had either low occupancy levels or a higher proportion of LA funded residents.

Here's some good information
Care and support alliance campaigning for reform in older and disability care.

this, but the mn mantra seems to be that those who have worked hard and saved should be so so grateful for this… that we should recognise that those who don’t work or contribute have it worse.. that it’s so much harder for them poor petals.. imagine never having to take responsibility for yourself or your needs and having to depend on others to pay your rent, your bills… that’s so much worse than working!!

This is my exact point. And then get told that we do get an amount kept free of this thats £23k. As if this is something to be grateful for!!! An entire life’s work and dedication is not worth that

They funded their inheritance for their heirs by being employed and then working really hard.

My gran went into a care home with nothing as she spent her life caring for my disabled grandad. She pretty much only worked before they got married.
And after a lifetime of caring, she ended up with 5 years of good health before vascular dementia took hold. So cruel. But yes, she never "took responsibility", and was a "poor petal".

Quite. Also, and you will pardon me if I shout but, absent the very very few on Continuing Health care funding, NO ONE PAYS NOTHING FOR RESIDENTIAL CARE. Most of your income will be taken in a council subsidised placement.

Bit of both isn't it? Some people don't work, and can do ok without savings. Not everyone has jobs either that can afford property, but you can't say that those with property have been given it on a plate. All too generalised.

I just think there should be a reasonable cap from home owners to pay towards care but I do agree, people shouldn't lose everything to pay for their care. Why can't there be a middle ground? It's pure jealousy from both sides - people who don't have homes owned are jealous, those who did put everything into their homes are jealous of those who get care for free. Fighting about it is just pointless.