Person going into care home thinks they have avoided selling their house to pay fees?

[LindorDoubleChoc]

A distant relative has just sadly gone into care (dementia). He is not married but has a long-term partner with whom he has two adult children.

His family seem to think he won't have to sell his property to pay for the fees because "he has put his house in his son's name". I'm trying to think what this means and surely if it were that simple everyone would do it?

Are they misunderstanding the system? Or how could they have achieved this? They are in England.

people who are funded by the local authority still get a choice though - of the options the LA will fund which is usually quite a varied choice

This is one of the best posts on this thread, in my view. I’m bracing myself for the fact that my parents could similarly use all of their assets (which are modest) to pay for care, not that there is any indication yet that they need it. So your sensible words hit home with me.

By contrast, slightly shocked at the number of people who seem intent on dodging the system, when “getting away with it” means cheating the public purse and consigning a loved one to the poorest level of care.

Yes, even if you give the house away, if you are still living in it you may still be considered to actually own it.

Social worker here that deals with this another.

1. If the partner is above 55 and was the full time carer and living in the house you can ask fir a disregard of the property. He has to remain living in the house until the owner dies.
2. Local authority will always look at the transfer of a property with suspension. Especially if the person already had care needs and known to social services at the time the property transferred. It is for the Local authority to prove that they intentionally transferred the property to avoid selling it. This is difficult and a lot of people do get away with it.

I know you really want this to be true, but again it really isn't.

are you thinking now that people can't have elderly relatives living with them unless they ask them to pay rent?

I think you're actually thinking about the rules around inheritance tax, and giving away an asset but continuing to benefit from it.

Tbh I think it’s a bit iffy morally to try ruses like this to avoid care home fees. It means taxpayers, including relatively badly off ones with no hope of owning a home or ever inheriting, will have to pay care fees for people with assets, sometimes substantial assets, who could afford to pay their own. Local authorities are really strapped for cash so the more people cheat the system the more pressure they are under and services come under threat. I know people want to inherit and leave legacies and the current system can be seen as penalising the thrifty. Difficult one.

I agree it is very difficult. Perhaps this is one of those questions the Government should ask the people (informally - not a referendum!) for their suggestions for a fair solution.

My Mum has a house which will hopefully pay for all her care and if it does and my brother and I don't inherit anything ... then so be it. I'm not fantastically well off but not on the bones of my arse either. My brother is pretty wealthy. She has left a third of her legacy to her two grandchildren who are now young adults ... it will be slightly sad for them if it is all spent before she dies, because they could properly use a boost. I know Mum will be sad at the thought of not leaving anything to her family.

OTOH, my parents-in-law have nothing, nothing whatsoever. They live in a rented house (paid for by housing benefit now they are retired) and on basic state pensions. They worked HARD all their lives in physical, rural jobs for minimum wage or less. But retired at 60 and 65 and now it is nearly 20 years later and they have had many medical conditions and operations between them which I am sure will have cost way more than anything they paid into the tax system given their very low wages.

Do I think my MIL should have a horrible low cost caring home (if she needs one) because she is poor and has always been poor? Just because my Mum is slightly on the other side of the coin (not completely as she doesn't have millions)? No of course I do not.

I don't know what the answer is.

Do you really imagine that the same rules can't apply? If you haven't really given your house away (which is obvious as you and your partner are living in it) that you can evade paying for care?

The point is that the person in question has not moved into his son's house but is still living in his original home with his partner.

Nope. They do a financial assessment.

Yes I really do think that, because there are clear legal rules defining both of these different things.

I know many mumsnetters have a massive issue with the gap between 'should' and 'is' and expect some kind of moral judgement to be applied, but that isn't how the law works.

Yes, you can. If you have no health problems at the time, and therefore no expectation of needing care, at the time the home is transferred, then it’s not deprivation of assets. It’s up to the LA to prove otherwise.

The only situation I’ve come across where the proceeds didn’t go to the home was the parent moving in to their adult child’s home to be cared for (dementia), the property being sold, proceeds going to the adult child and then a couple of years later the parent went in to a home for free. I don’t know the details though of how the proceeds were passed to the adult child.

But this poster is correct in that there is no obligation for the person continuing to live in the home to pay rent. You’re thinking of the seven year rule for inheritance tax, which is a different thing. Doesn’t apply to care.

No wonder people don't want to pay care fees £1750 week a rip off, no wonder care homes owners are rich.

When we were looking for mum earlier this year the most expensive were £1400. One had really nice rooms with a good variety of activities and staff who clearly had a good relationship with the residents. Another at the same price really was God's waiting room with minimum dull activities where mum would have been bored stiff.
In the end mum decided she isn't ready for a home yet. Supported accommodation isn't an option as they won't take someone who already has a dementia diagnosis so she's still.at home complaining of loneliness.

If the adult sold their house and moved in with the adult child they would have paid for any care in the community. If the adult child is the carer then nothing to pay. She could have spent all the money or gifted some money. By yhe time she goes jnto a xare home she was below yhe threshold and didn't pay. Happens alot.

The trouble is once those modest funds have gone your parents could very well end up in a worse care home. I care for my mum in my home, she has a modest property but it would last a year in a nice home then she’d be at square one, no funds to stay in a nice home and probably sent to a much lesser one. That really worries me but thankfully I can care for her as long as possible, hopefully never having to go into a home. If she does have to go into one at some point I’ll make sure it’s the best her modest funds can provide.

It’s deprivation of assets. It’s the oldest trick in the books. They won’t get away with it.

Frankly, I'd sooner jump (or wheel myself) off a cliff rather than have to sell my house to pay to sit in the circle of hell in a crap care home. Interestingly, here, the council care homes are much better than the private homes. But none of them is a remotely good way to end a life - and pay a fortune for it as well. Death is definitely preferable. Pray that you get cancer. Then you might finish up in a hospice, instead of paying a fortune to big business for substandard care. I don't know why more people aren't outraged by the lack of decent social care for the elderly. Or decent pay and career structures for those looking after them. Yet another way in which the UK has lost the plot.

I know of a friend of a friend who has basically decided to be full time carer to his mum who has dementia until she dies in order to keep the house.

He can't go out without her unless he gets a carer in. It's not a life I'd choose but he's 50 single no kids no house and a patchy career so I guess he sees it as the least worst option

Until it finally gets too much she goes into a him and he loses the house anyway. It’s a bit of a gamble.

There was an eviction case a few years ago, whereby mother transferred ownership to her daughter, presumably to avoid care home fees. However there was a big fall out and daughter got the mother evicted so she could sell the property! All went to court and daughter won the case. It was morally wrong but nobody knows what could happen between families some years down the line!

If they are tenants in common in their wills the authorities can’t take her half share of the property.

But you are ok with me and my family effectively paying your fees then whilst you avoid them? I

A friends’ father went into a dementia specialist care home at the age of 91 after his condition declined rapidly. Care home fees well over £5000 a month. He has just been admitted to hospital. The care home called an ambulance after a carer came to get him out of bed one morning and found him in severe pain. The attending physician found a number of severe injuries which the home can’t explain, and a nasty, untreated chest infection. The home have closed ranks at the suggestion of an investigation and made ongoing communication very difficult. Clearly sub standard care, lack of regard for the safety of those in their charge, and no evidence of any attempt to obtain medical treatment for what is clearly a long standing infection. And all of this in return for £5000+ a month. And mumsnetters are still outraged that people try to sidestep having to sell everything they own to pay for such low standards.