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.

It's not my experience

The "Asian mafia" running care homes and one none English member of staff for 100 residents? What did the police/safeguarding/CQC say when they investigated these claims? When were they closed down? And can you name the homes so I can read the case reviews please.

i guess what I’m saying is that the council is paying for too high a standard of provision in that case. Costs can come down as the quality of food can be reduced and the size of the homes can be reduced. And then self-funders get what they’ve paid for.

Certain pensioners downsize to spend their money and enjoy their retirement even to moving countries. Money runs out and they are not in good health, so return to the homeland, UK, they live at their AC’s AC cannot cope because parent needs 24/7 care, at one stage and expects the NHS to take care of penniless sick parent in a home. AC has had no money from parents, parents have spent all their money so the tax payer picks up the bill. It doesn’t seem right.

Yes I agree with all of this. No one's kids should be expecting they will get their parents house whilst the state pay for their parent's care in later life. If people are lucky enough to own their own home AND live a long life then it seems correct their home would be sold if necessary so instead they can live in sheltered accommodation/care home when the time comes. I have a modest inheritance from my parents simply because they both died in their 70s and hadn't spent their money or sold their home to fund care needs. We will use some of this money to help our kids with a 2nd hand car or towards the deposit for a flat if we can but it's unlikely that my kids will 'get' my house when we're old as we will no doubt need to downsize and use the money to supplement our state pensions and pay for our own care. I would rather my parents were still alive and enjoying theirs 80s using their own money to pay for suitable accommodation to pay for private healthcare for any ailments they may have had. Kids can't expect to get handed huge inheritances anymore unless they have incredibly weathy parents or unless their parents die before they reach old age.

At the moment it really feels like there is limited benefit in working hard and saving. Not working or spending every penny seems to be the only way forward. Sad times.

The majority of people would object to tax rises required to pay for it. A family with 2 working adults in low paid jobs should not have to pay increased taxes to allow a wealthy pensioner to leave a large inheritance to their family. The wealthy pensioner’s family are likely to be better off due to a better start in life & the low paid family are unlikely to receive much in the way of inheritance.

They may get universal credit though

A few months ago it was suggested my mum might need full time care at the age of 94. The LA managed to dig up financial information going back thirty years that even l didn’t know about. They knew about previous property she had owned, levels of savings and investments/pensions at various times and even current bank balances.

At the age of 79 she gifted to me her half of the house we owned jointly because she didn’t want to be bothered with the day to day running of it. The LA managed to make a case of deprivation of assets for no other reason than her age, even though she was in good health at the time of the gift.

Unfortunately she passed away before the council got their way, but despite it being the law of the land that the home of the person going into care cannot be included in the financial assessment if it is the only residence of a direct relative who is disabled and over the age of 60 (both of which apply to me) they were bringing pressure to bear to do just that, despite me being a joint owner. Anyone who thinks that these things are simply a matter of talking to the LA and expecting them to be reasonable is deluding themselves.

Food won’t make much of a difference
have you RTFT
the food according to other posters is crap already

Oh I’m not deluded in that at all
We had similar conversations with them regarding my MIL and dad

As said earlier up thread, part of the problem is that many ppl have no idea how paying for care works. It's not something we learn about unless it's part of our job. Age uk have a range of incredibly useful fact sheets that explain how it works as well as a help line

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

@AnneShirleyBlythe

It could be an insurance scheme in a persons own name. To pay for your care if you need it.

Much like other insurance schemes. They are safeguards

The care home owners are relying on the self funders. It makes no difference to the council if some residents are self funders.

Local authorities pay for places in private homes. There are virtually no council homes left. The quality of food is already crap for those paying so how much of a miserable life are you proposing for those who are unable to pay ? The assumption here is that those who can’t pay are feckless and that’s just not the case. My parents worked hard all their lives and never managed to afford their own homes - as many young people today can’t because the housing ladder is beyond their financial reach. It doesn’t make them any less hard working than those who do own a home, it just means they haven’t been afforded the same opportunities. Why should they spend their old age in sub standard care because of it ?

Of course it does
Councils don’t pay enough for care
Without self funders topping up financially the care homes would have to close

See pp with average figures involved

Exactly. Both are illnesses.

You’ve made a very good point about less people today affording their own homes
This policy is a ticking time bomb
with less people in the future with assets to prop up the system.

The Government needs to look to the future on this

Actually it does, because local authorities manage to secure places in care homes at a reduced rate because self funders are the ones paying the difference. If self funders were not picking up some of the costs, LA’s wouldn’t be able to secure the cheaper rates.

Exactly

Why shouldn't their assets be sold off to pay for care though, if they don't pay then tax payers do, just so their kids get the inheritance?

It puts houses back in to the market to help everyone instead of making home ownership even more unobtainable.

The system can't subsidise everyone, it would collapse if it tried. Money doesn't grow on trees, selling of assets keep the whole system running instead of crashing and burning.

The alternative would be everyone gets massively substandard care, everyone should pay where they can, and then everyone gets decent care, instead of a 2 tier system where those with no assets get abandoned.

Assets sold off to pay for randoms care in the room next door !

Its been covered over and over on the thread

This was mentioned upthread. There are an awful lot of variables with funded care for cancer patients and it’s not a given that all will qualify for free care. There has to be a terminal diagnosis and there are time limits to that. The need for care also has to be entirely down to medical need - in other words, NHS continuing healthcare, which is extremely difficult to secure. Living costs outside of nursing/medical care, often referred to as hotel costs, are often not covered.

Hospice care is an option if available, but again, not without a time limited terminal diagnosis, but this is not limited to a cancer diagnosis and can apply to the last stages of dementia or other illnesses etc. The difference is that this kind of care doesn’t cover the likely years of care needed with other conditions and is only available in the last stages of life.

If everyone was charged the same, the costs would go down for everybody.

Not unless the care facilities involved were operating on a not for profit basis. Which is not the case.