Elderly parents v the Disabled child: who wins?

[Supersimpkin]

Moral Mumsnetters at your best; opinions, please, on a dilemma we're facing at the charity I vol for. The charity won't get involved, doesn't do that kind of help.

One of our vols is a very sweet bloke, 50-plus, chronic disease that's no longer classed as fatal but is pretty disabling. He lives on disability benefits and works when he can, unpaid, in the office. Lives in rented bedsit up the road.

His parents, who I know slightly, mid-80s, also live up road in their £2.5 million house that they can't really manage any more. He helps them with jobs around the house, etc as much as he can. They don't subsidise DS at all as far as I know but are pretty cash-rich re gardeners and carers, etc.

Both parents have got dementia at the mild stages and are facing care for a very very long time. Round here it's 3k a week - each. They've promised DS a home via inheritance from them and, I suspect, haven't helped with anything up to now because of this 'jam tomorrow' promise.

But DP won't leave anything. Apart from the Alzheimer's they're physically fitter than DS, so if they do end up in care it will be for years. There's a chance he could pass away before they do.

So do you think DP should house DS now?

I'm all for people making their own way in life, but in this case I can't help feeling the DP ought to consider provision for DC.

It's up to them how they spend their money, charities dont get involved in these situations do they? Why are you getting involved.

But if the parents both need to go into care, if they buy their DS a house now won't it be seen as "Deprivation of assets?"

If I recall correctly, if their remaining assets are all utilised by care costs and they are still living and requiring ongoing care, LA can then claim the house purchased for their DS as they could state that by buying him a property they were reducing their assets in the hope that the Local Authority would cover remaining costs. ☹️

So do you think DP should house DS now?

My opinion? I think they should, although they have probably left it too late, leaving them open to a potential accusation of deprivation of assets.

Can they be compelled to house him now? Nope.

I don't really understand your involvement OP, or why you are asking us this question. Surely it's a matter for them alone?

morally I think they should have helped years ago but I don't see how they can do it now

are you suggesting they offer to move him in there, would that make the house untouchable in terms of deprivation of assets?

Are the charity actively helping.the man to find paid work rather than unpaid and help in finding suitable accommodation, does he qualify for .social or supported living.

3k a week for a care home seems very expensive, are you sure theres nothing a bit cheaper. I live in an expensive area and its 1 to 1.5k a week max.

@HappyHammy if there are two parents you have to double care fees. Hence the £3k in an expensive area.

OP - it might seem a sad situation but it really isn't anything to do with you - and given the ages of this man and his parents, surely it's been going on for decades. I don't really see that the situation around the parents finances and the dons ability to fund himself has changed , either due to their ages or because you have come into contact with them.

Son should move into the parents house then when their cash does run low and they need residential the LA won't make them sell house because son is living there. Esp if he's got a disability. Also applies when he's over 60 regardless of disability.

There are alternatives to care homes. Live in carers can work out much cheaper.

It's quite possible he doesn't want to live with his parents, and end up as their carer.

If he lives in his parents house and the parents have to go into residential care then the house should be ignored as an asset