Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Elderly parents
Original poster

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

440 replies

LindorDoubleChoc · 11/08/2023 19:59

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.

OP posts:
DuesToTheDirt · 13/08/2023 23:05

MereDintofPandiculation · 13/08/2023 22:53

So would you take the same view with health care? Surely it is equally entitled to expect the state to pay for your medical care if you have assets to contribute to it?

Show quote history

Not the same thing. People in care homes no longer need their house to live in (unless there is a spouse, which is covered elsewhere). They are also typically end of life, and have no other personal financial needs - without the house, they don't have heating bills, or food to buy. They can't go on holiday, or buy a car, or go out to fancy restaurants.

So, the money from house and/or savings either gets spent on their care, which is basically their living costs after all, or it gets passed on as inheritance - with taxpayers funding this.

MoralOrLegal · 13/08/2023 23:10

@Sisterpita Yes, that all makes a lot of sense. I have always known that care-home fees are very high for that reason. My dad is looked after well. He had around five good years of living in a lovely place round the corner from us (at his choice) and seeing his grandchildren at a crucial stage of their development, before he sadly became confused and unable to recognise anyone (some six years ago). I don't begrudge the fees (from selling his home) for that.

(If I'm honest I feel that my dad isn't really "there" any more, just his body, and I do sometimes now feel frustrated about the financial situation, but that's probably a different thread.)

saraclara · 13/08/2023 23:27

I wouldn't mind paying for my own care. What I mind is that I'd be subsidising the person on the next room who is not self-funding.
While my mum was self funding, her care home costs were £6,000 a month. When her money ran out and the council took over, the care home only charged the council £4,000 a month.

The care home manager was entirely open with us that the shortfall is made up with what the self-funding residents are charged.

Now THAT'S immoral.

EleanorLucyG · 13/08/2023 23:29

SequentialAnalyst · 12/08/2023 21:51

I have a friend whose mother, now in her late nineties, went into quite a nice care home of her own volition, after living at home and having to go in and out of hospital a few times.

At her request and with her permission her family put her, now empty, house on the market, as everyone could foresee her small amount savings running out.

They got an offer, but it fell through. Meanwhile, she ran out of money, and had an LA assessment. When it came through, it was to offer carers 4 times a day in her own home.

Which had been totally cleared, and was still on the market. Friend explained the situation to the LA, but they were adamant. So DC have been paying the care home fees, and she will pay them back when the house is sold. Which hopefully will happen soon, as the house is now under offer again.

It's been a nightmare for the whole family Sad And none of the DC are well off.

Oh hells bells. I don't think she'll be able to pay them back when the house is sold. It'll be deprivation of assets. Unless perhaps the children had it legally drawn up that the money they were giving her for the care home fees was a loan?

MereDintofPandiculation · 13/08/2023 23:33

DuesToTheDirt · 13/08/2023 23:05

Not the same thing. People in care homes no longer need their house to live in (unless there is a spouse, which is covered elsewhere). They are also typically end of life, and have no other personal financial needs - without the house, they don't have heating bills, or food to buy. They can't go on holiday, or buy a car, or go out to fancy restaurants.

So, the money from house and/or savings either gets spent on their care, which is basically their living costs after all, or it gets passed on as inheritance - with taxpayers funding this.

Show quote history

Someone in hospital doesn't have heating bills or food to pay. Obviously they need to maintain their house. But what are their savings for, if not for when they fall on hard times - why should illness be excluded?
Why should the taxpayer subsidise someone's ability to go on holiday, buy a car, or go out to fancy restaurants?

Amabitnewhere · 13/08/2023 23:33

NotImpressedByYourBragging · 11/08/2023 21:10

My husband and I are seeing a financial advisor soon, with the idea of signing our house over to a family trust - we're in our early 60s, no health problems as such, but want to avoid our AC having to sell our home to pay for care fees, in the future.

How does this work? Does the house bring in a trust protect it?

Sisterpita · 13/08/2023 23:35

@saraclara that is wrong.
@MoralOrLegal I am sorry, it is very difficult to be in that position.

MereDintofPandiculation · 13/08/2023 23:38

If I'm honest I feel that my dad isn't really "there" any more, just his body, and I do sometimes now feel frustrated about the financial situation, but that's probably a different thread. Yes, it seems to me a criminal waste of money if the person is "no longer there" AND if they had expressed the wish, while competent, not to be kept alive long after their mind had gone.

If the state wants to keep my physical body alive when II am no longer me and against my wishes, the state should damned well pay for it.

Trez1510 · 13/08/2023 23:39

saraclara · 13/08/2023 23:27

I wouldn't mind paying for my own care. What I mind is that I'd be subsidising the person on the next room who is not self-funding.
While my mum was self funding, her care home costs were £6,000 a month. When her money ran out and the council took over, the care home only charged the council £4,000 a month.

The care home manager was entirely open with us that the shortfall is made up with what the self-funding residents are charged.

Now THAT'S immoral.

What did the council say when you demanded your mother be transferred to a home where others were not directly subsidising her? Were they helpful?

DuesToTheDirt · 13/08/2023 23:41

MereDintofPandiculation · 13/08/2023 23:33

Someone in hospital doesn't have heating bills or food to pay. Obviously they need to maintain their house. But what are their savings for, if not for when they fall on hard times - why should illness be excluded?
Why should the taxpayer subsidise someone's ability to go on holiday, buy a car, or go out to fancy restaurants?

Show quote history

You have a point, but only I think for end-of-life cases, with no dependents. I don't want a system like the US, where 30-year olds can face a lifetime of debt paying for their cancer treatment, or for major operations. Even if you limited the cost to their savings, you are affecting their partner and their children. I wouldn't have an issue with 90-year olds in the same situation being asked to use their savings before getting paid for by the state.

anonymousxoxo · 13/08/2023 23:47

punnedout · 13/08/2023 21:22

Such a cop out comment. Take some responsibility.

Show quote history

No

turtle8919 · 13/08/2023 23:52

It makes me sick that someone should be made to sell their home for fees. Something they may have worked hard to achieve and pay off vs someone who hasn't had to pay a mortgage all those years getting free care! It's like being penalised for wanting to leave something behind for the children

Sisterpita · 13/08/2023 23:59

@MereDintofPandiculation Most people are not in hospital long term. Some benefits may stop when in hospital for a long time.

in the short term you still have to pay daily standing charges and other bills.

saraclara · 14/08/2023 00:08

Trez1510 · 13/08/2023 23:39

What did the council say when you demanded your mother be transferred to a home where others were not directly subsidising her? Were they helpful?

Show quote history

They moved her to an extra care facility to save money. Her income from her work.pays for her rent, and she pays her own utilities and food etc. Her state pension and benefits go straight to the council. The council now only picks up her care. Despite being paralysed she only gets four care visits a day.

She burned through (at an estimate) £400,000 for her care before they took over. Could be considerably more as I know what her house was worth but not how much savings she had. I estimate that around £150,00 of that was not spent on her, but on other people. So I'm not going to feel remotely bad about some of her own money coming back to her now. It's not going to be anything like the amount she spent on subsidising others.

saraclara · 14/08/2023 00:09

Her income from her work pension, rather.

saraclara · 14/08/2023 00:13

Obviously if she'd been only paying for hey own care at the care home, she's still be self funding. She only ran out of money because she was overcharged. The council wouldn't be funding anything at this point if she'd only been paying the real cost of her care there.

Cucucucu · 14/08/2023 00:16

It really depends on when it was done and how it was done . I know someone who did this way before they were even poorly , over 10 years before , his son and family also moved in so that made it more believable as it was their main residence . They had no issues

SequentialAnalyst · 14/08/2023 00:30

@EleanorLucyG the money had to be found from somewhere - she certainly couldn't return to her house, whatever the council thought. I guess they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.

EleanorLucyG · 14/08/2023 00:35

@Cathpot marriage = automatic owner of any assets. It doesn't matter who's name the asset is in. So your DM is co-owner of her DH house, by virtue of being married to him. She can't be kicked out and the house sold for his care, if he goes into a care home. If she goes into a care home too, then it's sold to pay towards both of them. If she dies while still living at home and before him, the house will be sold for his care fees.

SequentialAnalyst · 14/08/2023 00:42

marriage = automatic owner of any assets. It doesn't matter who's name the asset is in.

I don't think that's true of all assets, is it? Except in the case where a couple is divorcing.

SequentialAnalyst · 14/08/2023 00:42

Then everything goes in the pot.

Trez1510 · 14/08/2023 00:45

saraclara · 14/08/2023 00:13

Obviously if she'd been only paying for hey own care at the care home, she's still be self funding. She only ran out of money because she was overcharged. The council wouldn't be funding anything at this point if she'd only been paying the real cost of her care there.

She wasn't overcharged though.

She was charged the going rate for an individual customer.

The council buys in bulk - economies of scale and all that - therefore they attract a better rate.

You've happily been misled/deluded by the care home manager who is grinding her axe that their overheads are too high to allow the required profit for their shareholders.

EleanorLucyG · 14/08/2023 00:49

SequentialAnalyst · 14/08/2023 00:30

@EleanorLucyG the money had to be found from somewhere - she certainly couldn't return to her house, whatever the council thought. I guess they'll cross that bridge when they come to it.

So long as they realise that the local authority will come after them not at the point she sells the house and "pays them back", ie gifts them money, but years later when all her money is gone and she needs local authority funding and they check into her finances and see she gave money away. The children need to have the money available to repay it if necessary, otherwise they could maybe face losing their own homes, having to sell up to raise the money to pay the local authority back the money she gave away, if they've no other savings/income to pay it from. If she dies before her money runs out it won't be an issue.

I agree with you, the assessment and eligibility for care needs is insufficient. Quality of life often seems to be irrelevant.

They'd have expected her to use the money from the sale of the house contents to purchase replacements so the house was fit to live in and if she didn't they'd have considered that a lifestyle choice. That family learned the hard way you can't choose when to go into a care home unless you're funding it yourself (or your relatives funding it, as in this lady's case). It's a difficult and inadequate system.

EleanorLucyG · 14/08/2023 01:08

SequentialAnalyst · 14/08/2023 00:42

marriage = automatic owner of any assets. It doesn't matter who's name the asset is in.

I don't think that's true of all assets, is it? Except in the case where a couple is divorcing.

Everything goes in the pot regardless, that's what marriage is in terms of finances - a joining of assets. You can't access the assets that are solely in someone else's name without their permission and them facilitating it eg getting cash out of your spouse's bank account. But that doesn't change the fact it's basically as much yours as it is theirs. That's why financial abuse (basically denying your spouse money) is a thing that's illegal. It's why you can't claim means-tested benefits if your spouse earns over a certain amount or has significant savings, even though you may have absolutely nothing to your name £0 income or savings - in the eyes of the authorities, their money is your money.

If the two married people decide to say: this is mine and this is yours - that's upto them and as long as they agree, it's all fine and dandy. Legally it means nothing much though. It only becomes a problem when they divorce because there tends to be arguments about it!

If you don't want to join assets with someone - don't marry them. In the case of means-tested benefits you can't even live with them unmarried unless you're both willing to pool resources. If you don't want any financial ties at all with a partner, you need to live separately from them.

EmmaGrundyForPM · 14/08/2023 01:32

turtle8919 · 13/08/2023 23:52

It makes me sick that someone should be made to sell their home for fees. Something they may have worked hard to achieve and pay off vs someone who hasn't had to pay a mortgage all those years getting free care! It's like being penalised for wanting to leave something behind for the children

Surely most of us buy a house for security, not because we want to leave something for our children. Also, our house is worth a lot of money not because we've earned it but because the housing market has risen hugely over the lifetime of our mortgage.

Our son works incredibly hard but is unlikely to ever be able to afford a to own his own home due to rising house prices. He had to move out of his house earlier this year as his landlord put it on the market. The (shared) house he's moved into has now just been put on the market so he's got to find somewhere else.