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.

This is a worry of mine. I have lived with my mother for 15 years (after my father died, and at her request) and I am a lone parent, and I consider this mine and my child's home too, and have put lots of money into it. I am going to caring for my mother as she ages obviously, but I'm also scared that me and my child are going to be homeless if my mother has to go into a home in the future, and the house has to be sold. Theres no chance I can afford a mortgage if she tries to sell to me either..

When my mum had to go in a care home, it was made very clear to me by the social worker that they would go back 'as far as necessary' if there was any concern re: deprivation of assets. I was on tenterhooks because my mum had given me about £20k for house rennovations about 6 months prior to me realising that her mind was going, about 18 months at the point where she could no longer manage alone. There is no way I could have found that money if they had considered it deprivation of assets - and I don't think they'd have been unreasonable to take that view given how close it was to her diagnosis. She died, however, prior to all the money being spent, so it was never tested.

Personally, I’d rather hand over my house to my children and they use it to rent e.g. generate money or split it equally amongst themselves. I don’t see the point in funding care for myself when I’m near the end of my life and let’s say I went into a home, wasting my life savings (e.g. house on 2 years care), what if I run out of money then what? I’ll have to go into a state run care home. I’ll most likely be really sick, have illnesses and other things - I’d rather be euthanised but it’s illegal in the UK.

And the very rich avoid paying tax etc ALL THE TIME - yet they get away with it. But, the average person has to play by the rules? Haha, no.

Some of these stories are heartbreaking. Personally, I'd like to see ALL care homes being provided for free, paid for with much higher taxes by those earning enough.

But why, you are removing any element of choice as to where you go if you do need care. Obviously if you don’t have mental capacity you may not know or care but if you are well mentally would you not rather be able to choose somewhere better?

If you give you house to someone and move out, or give it to them and pay the market rate in rent then it is a genuine gift. If he then continued to live there rent free then he maintained an interest in the property and it is open to challenge.

Ladyluck13 You and your mother must draw up a will where it stats that you are tenants in common* that means that you own half the property and your mother the other half.
The house can not be sold until you die because obviously you can’t sell/ buy half a house.

My grandad went into a home, my gran was still living in the house. My parents got legal advice and my Gran was able to leave her half to my dad (only child) and then the other half had to go to the council when my gran died.

My Gran dies first so my dad has to buy out my grandads half so it could go on care fees… my grandad actually died a few weeks later so my dad got the whole house in the end. I should note whilst my gran was alive my grandad didn’t have to pay any care home fees as their income was so low. It was only when my gran died that they could put a charge on their house but there is a 12 week grace period which my grandad died within hence why there was no charge.

Basically the solicitor said no way can you just put the house fully into my Gran or my dads name as that’ll be deprivation of assets.

Is it in a trust? Does his partner still live in the property? If so it would be disregarded anyways…
councils can look back as far as they see fit, common rule is did they do it when the person had care needs I.E package of care at home etc.

I agree it’s terrible that you work all your life to own your home and then have to sell if you go into care (dependent upon circumstances) however what I will say is money gives you choice in which care home, meaning you do not go to one that charges the council the least at the time!

As someone who used to work in Adult Care, I came across more than a few. It’s very real.

Land registry records are a matter of public record, and the LA can have access to stamp duty records. They also have council tax records, voting register records, etc., again going back years/decades. It's not that hard to find out if someone previously owned a house and any ownership changes of the house a person lived in immediately before going into a home. It's basically an hour (or less) of a council officer's time to get the full picture of the house ownership over time, and the person's history of house ownerships.

Some of the replies on here are very sad indeed and heartbreaking. Sadly it’s not the first time I hear of such stories.
In my opinion, care homes should provide first class care and should be non profit organisation.
The whole model of care homes is so immoral, profiteering from the end of life care of desperate families whilst providing them with substandard service and taking their hard earned money and pocketing them.

Does he live with his partner ? Because if he hadn't complicated it with the son, if one of the cohabitants is still living in the house, it cannot be sold for care home fees.
eg My parents jointly own their home. If my mum needs to go into a nursing home then the home cannot be used in the financial assessment as it would still be dad's residence. I'm not sure what the situation is with unmarried couples but I imagine it would be the same.

I am always surprised that people don’t think through what going into care actually means. If you go into a care home, that becomes your home.

Realistically would someone in a care home keep the family home empty and continue to pay council tax, gas, electric, water, phone/broadband, insurance, maintenance for 2,5, 10 years? Most people either sell or family move in and take over the bills. Either way the person who is in the care home sees a drastic reduction in their monthly/annual expenditure.

Care homes charge residents for their share of the council tax, gas, electric, water, phone/broadband, buildings insurance, maintenance etc. As well as food and drink. Residents would only be responsible for paying for contents insurance and toiletries, clothes etc. Why should residents not pay this charge? Is it not reasonable to ask a resident to pay for the services they would have had to pay in their own home?

Currently National Minimum Wage (NMW) is £10.42. £10.42 x 24 hours x 365 days = £91,279.2 per year. On top you have employer NI, pension contributions, admin overheads, plus the fact that you need to cover annual leave etc. You are looking at over 100k a year to have 24 hour care in your own home, a care home achieves economies of scale that make it less expensive when shared out. Is it really unreasonable for a resident to pay their share of the costs of providing them with care?

Is it immoral to pay carers NMW, is it immoral to charge for buying and cooking food, providing heating, light and water?

Not true, the 7 years is for tax purposes.

For care home it's different.

If say you gave a house to your child in your 40s with no reason to think you were going to end up in a care home, fine. If you give your house away in your 60s knowing that there was a good chance of needing a care home, it will be classed as deprivation of assets and will be sold to pay for your care.
If you give up one house of many to your child, that is not DoA.

Even then, lesser abled dependants and spouses can have an effect too.

Its really quite difficult to get out of paying for your care.

But who will run these not for profit care homes? Someone a lot further down the thread said "only 1 in 5 will need a care home" like that's a tiny number. 1 in 5 of the UK population is a huge number!! Much as I would like to see it being tax funded, I really don't see how it can?

Whilst you ‘protect’ your DC’s inheritance, who are you expecting to pay your care home fees? The taxpayer?

The trouble is, people just don't see it like this. They think "the government/council will pay", or their thought processes might even make it as far as "the taxpayer will pay", without getting to the final step of considering who those taxpayers are and whether it's reasonable for them to pay taxes to preserve some entitled stranger's inheritance.

I don’t think you should worry, @ladyluck13. There are a number of exemptions that apply when other people live in the property owned by the person needing care. You may well fall into one or more of those categories. The information is easy to find, Google “paying for care fees” and you should find information to reassure you.

You would be better owning the house as tenents in common rather than jointly and then on the first death 50% pf the house goes into trust in the names/s of whichever people you want to inherit. They cannot do anything with it until the second death, if the survivor needs care home fees only 50% of the value of the house can be taken.

This stinks. Why shouldn’t people pay for their own care if they have assets to cover the cost? Why should it become societies expense/problem just because somebody wants to leave a house to their children? It’s exactly this entitled attitude that has created massive financial issues in this country. I hope they change the law retrospectively and come after everybody who has tried to ‘beat the system’

100% agree with this. It’s an incredibly selfish and entitled attitude - as if society owes somebody care even though the person has assets to cover it. It needs to be stamped out.

Yes, because up till that point she will have been subsidising someone else through her inflated private fees. That’s how the system works. The people who get the most out of it are the ones whose assets are so low they meet the threshold for full assistance. Do you mind paying for them?