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.

At old age why waste hundreds of thousands of money which will be gone in 2 years on my care. I’m almost dying at that point, sick and ill - I’d rather die peacefully and give my children the shares of the house equally which can be used as house deposits or whatever.

I don’t think it’s fair for people who have worked hard to get a home to then pay for their own care fees, whereas people who haven’t get it for free!

Also rich people avoid paying tax all the time so couldn’t care less

Me too.

I’m sure greater minds than mine have considered this, but to overcome the regional difference in house prices could a percentage of its value be used as the cap rather than a flat amount. Tbh it’s academic though as Boris’s oven ready idea has been kicked into the long grass and I expect it won’t reappear for a long time regardless of who is in power. I do feel a bit aggrieved that having worked hard all our lives my children could only be left with £23,500 between them.

You do realise a lot of people work hard but for low wages that mean they don't build up.assets. Those carers, for example, will need to pay more tax so you can have a lot of money when you are dead.

And how is that my problem?

Oh wow. Happy to see those carers dumped in their old age having worked their socks off caring for you and paying towards your care. What a nice person!

No one gets it for free, I believe. At the very least, whatever pension is received is contributed towards fees

But still

I don't want to derail this thread but the idea that all those who don't own their own home haven't worked hard is ridiculous.

Near me, a new estate has just been built, very ordinary, where the cheapest property is a studio flat for £350k. Two bedroom terraced houses start at £550k. House ownership is impossible for those on low wages no matter how hard they work.

The snobbery and selfishness on this thread is staggering.

“I don't want to derail this thread but the idea that all those who don't own their own home haven't worked hard is ridiculous.”

agree @EmmaGrundyForPM

This is why I'd rather do anything than give all my money to a care home when I may well be too ill to know where I am or enjoy any frills.

Again, the difference in price between frills and no frills is not massive compared to the baseline cost of care. Of course, if adds up, but where you are in the country probably has the biggest impact on weekly rates.

It's also worth knowing about NHS Continuing Healthcare. Many people with dementia qualify for this, as well as people with lots of other conditions such as strokes etc. It can be quite hard to get, but it is always worth appealing if your relative/friend gets turned down initially. https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/money-work-and-benefits/nhs-continuing-healthcare/

I believe there are rules as to this. I think 7 years must elapse before the house is no longer considered for care home fees. I also think there were some new rules whereby the people in whose name the house was put must pay rent to the previous owner and show that they have paid rent. No doubt sneaky people can get round this somehow.

I do think it is unfair when nearly all of a house's value can be taken to pay for care fees. I think it would be much fairer if every property over a certain value was liable for a small percentage to be be paid into a government account ring-fenced exclusively for care fees. I would be quite happy with this system - even if I never needed to receive residential care, I would just be grateful for that. People make such a fuss about inheritance tax (even when the vast majority of estates are not valuable enough to attract inheritance tax) and yet they seem to be less incensed about this very unfair system.

It does. 7 years is the timeframe.

7 years has NOTHING to do with deprivation of assets. They can go back 20 years or more if they are suspicious.

7 years is for monetary gifts to drop out of someone’s Estate for Inheritance Tax.

STOP conflating the two.

That should say Monetary gifts AND other assets.

Please correct me if I am wrong here, but as I understand it when a home is put in trust, the land registry details don't change until the owner of the house dies. When they die, the trust then kicks in.

If you own your home and have a low income and not very much in savings, the local council pay for any carers that come in. I believe they can provide up to four double ups (two people at a time) every day. If the care needs are more than that, then that is when the service user would go into a care home or move in with relatives. Or they could stay in their own home and release some equity to pay for their care. At that point they would have to fund all their care because the financial assessment would show they had plenty of money because they released some equity.

“People make such a fuss about inheritance tax (even when the vast majority of estates are not valuable enough to attract inheritance tax)”

The need to make care home payments will nudge a number of estates out of IHT.

I can relate to that. My DM lived with me and my two young children for a year when she became too poorly to live on her own. She gradually deteriorated and because of my circumstances, I was unable to have her here with me any longer as it wasn't fair on the children - open plan house with DM sleeping in the dining part of my small kitchen/diner and then having to be hoisted into the living room and put a commode four times a day by the carers. Not ideal for the children and certainly no dignity for her.

It broke my heart when she went into a care home and that was when I did all my grieving because I felt I had lost her. She became hypoxic because she wouldn't keep her nasal canula in (COPD) which meant she was very confused. She sadly passed two years later.

Yes, that is what my cousin and his wife have done. You have to make sure everything is watertight, so you can't get turfed out on a whim or if the children get a 'dodgy' partner who insists the parents need to kicked out to free up some assets.

Unfortunately, if you have dementia or other debilitating care/ support needs and you cannot remain in your home because no one is willing or able to give you the 24/7 care necessary, your LPA can make a financial/ welfare decision to remove you from the home if it's deemed in your best interests.

So many issues with these sorts of restrictions.

They can also sell your home if they want to and what then?

Unfortunately there are crooked lawyers and crooked family members and if you don't have mental capacity anymore your wishes may be over ruled.

I think in the case I refer to, the money for care won't be needed for long.

Re: assets. If I have money of my own, say in equities, I am the one who decides what to happen to those equities. If they are in my name, and a Capital Gains Tax bill arises, then it's me and only me that pays it. And with only 1 CGT threshold available.

If they are held jointly, then the other person's CGT threshold can also be used.

*allowance, not threshold