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.

Pretty much.

there may be other factors but once the home is 'available' it gets taken into account for the financial assessment which are redone yearly by default and sooner if needed.

the 12 week property disregard is something different though - that is a 3 month period after you have moved into a care home where the local authority disregard the value of your property from the calculation.

Yep and it happens more than people realise!

anyone trying to avoid care fees by passing things over to their children must be very very certain of the solidity of their offspring's marriage now and in the future...

That's because dad died after mum.

if he had died before then you would have been contacted about using the value of the house to pay for her care.

@TakenRoot yep!!!! We had this conversation the other day! But he's told her how it will benefit her and how bil wouldn't kick her out! I've told her a million times but she just takes everything he says as the sworn truth

My father was until recently, in a very expensive care home, south coast.

He had excellent care, it was a purpose built home so plenty of room in corridors, rooms were spacious with lovely furniture, large en suite shower rooms, again, very spacious. He liked the food, they had lots of special events, BBQ in the summer plus afternoon teas every now and then, special themed meals.

Having seen how well he was looked after, no way would I risk not having enough money to pay for best quality care should I need it in the future. The last thing I would do would be to sign my property over to someone else whereby you could end up with nothing if they turn out to be extremely dishonest.

I think you would be an idiot to be honest.

@SheilaFentiman Unreasonable to pay nothing. But most people going into care aren’t paying anything like £1000 a week for their living costs at home. (Nor are they paying an extra 40% to subsidise those being funded by the LA)

And by the same token, why don’t people pay living costs when in hospital?

I think there’s two reasons 1) because dementia wasn’t such a problem back in 1946 when the NHS and “care from cradle to grave” was being set up. Same way that the list of illnesses attracting free prescriptions is so arbitrary compered with today’s needs and available drugs 2) as a society, we don’t value older people.

Trouble is, if you gift the house away (and get away with it!) you're then entirely reliant on what council funded places are available. The care would probably be fine (and probably better!) than in an expensive private home but it could be miles from anyone who might want to visit you, you won't get to choose which home or room.

And the stage before that, as not everyone gets into a home. Councils will keep people at home as long as possible with often hit-or-miss care visits. You could end up isolated at home with constantly changing carers. If you still own your own house you can choose to sell it and move into residential care. A council won't fund this.

It probably was that but it was city centre market rent and they struggled to pay it, having to borrow money. Not what I'd want for my parents, having to scrape together cash. His siblings were furious.

Yes, the Solicitor has gone through all of this with her. They’ve been very honest with her about the potential downsides as well as the positives so she’s going into it fully informed. She’s spent many months thinking over it and talking to my dad about it (although they are divorced) and she told me about 3 weeks ago that she wanted to do it.

I was a little surprised but she’s made her decision and I understand her reasons why.

To b honest, I think she’s hoping that Euthanasia will be legal in the UK by that point as ending up in a nursing home is something she really, really doesn’t want.

It's not just having a choice of which care home it's when. The council will only pay for a place in a home when it is really absolutely necessary and 4 visits a day isn't enough. But that 4 visits a day won't be covering cleaning or maintenance of the property. It won't cover shopping. It won't cover medical, dental or optician appointments. It won't cover all the admin with running a home. It won't provide company or stimulating activities. Self funders can choose to go into a pleasant home a bit earlier, when it suits all their needs rather than wait until the umpteenth time the carers have arrived at 9am to find they got out of bed at 2am and have been lying in urine and faeces for 7 hours.

Apologies but I haven't read the whole thread, just OPs comments and the early pages.

I looked at Age UK's advice and when you transfer assets can make a difference. If you transfer years before the event, when you had no idea that you might need care later (but how many do that?) then it isn't relevant.

However, most pull this stunt when care needs are looming and it will be investigated. Then they'll treat you as though you still have the asset, be it house, jewellery, vintage car collection whatever.

This may be the most eye-opening thread I’ve seen in my history of MN. I had no idea that you could be a self-funder and live in the same care home as someone who hasn’t had property to use for their care. Anyone else shocked about this?

I can certainly see why some folks gift their properties to their adult kids. Selling the property and using the money to travel and make the most of your life (whilst you don’t need care then depending on the government to care for you when you need it) is also something that’s viable, though equally as morally dubious. I suppose it’s all a gamble.

7 years for inheritance tax only starts to run if you haven't 'reserved a benefit' in the gift. So if you give away a house but continue to live in it you haven't made a true gift for iht, and it's still assessed as part of your estate.

Unless the donor pays market rent as pps have mentioned.

Some of those saying 'oh but the 7 years have passed' will get a nasty tax shock (I see this frequently in a work context).

The difference between bare minimum and what the more funded self places is incredible though.

My grandad was in the bare minimum place from approx 2011 till 2019. Now there were staff who truly cared and made a difference but a very high turn over and frequently staff didn't last. They were put in special measures twice in that time, there were 7 new managers and 9 assistant managers in that time including 1 manager who was one of those problem solvers brought in when shit hit the fan.

She moved across to a new care home as she was head hunted (understandable as she was incredible) and the manager after her was horrendous (like we as family members had to get safe guarding called in she was that bad, ever passing messages, staff in tears in her office, not enough staff on, huge turn over even more than usual, meds no being given or left instead of supervised, faking paperwork when cqc were in. That's just the tip of it. She's not allowed to work in care now). We were looking to move in and as we'd got on so well with the manager before we went for a look... More than the bare minimum of staff, didn't spell of wee as soon as iu got inside, the staff were happy, the residents elated, call bells answered within 2 minutes, a private physio, a gym, a sports area, an honesty pub (literal pub you could use for events too) a shopping "center" designed to look like way back when... I could go in. The rooms were ensuote too, every single one. I'd want to go there for a holiday it was that good! But it was over twice the price of what he had minimally funded by the LA and wasn't possible (he hadn't owned his own home)

“And by the same token, why don’t people pay living costs when in hospital? “

@MereDintofPandiculation i woild
imagine partly because people are in days or weeks, rather than months or years. But mostly because they still have a home that they rent, heat, light, say. Whereas the majority of care home residents have no further need for their home (though a spouse may be in it, of course).

@benfoldsfivefan yes, some care homes take both self funders and council funded occupants BUT the council funded may end up with smaller rooms (therefore can't have as many of their things with them), possibly with a nice view of the bins rather than the garden, maybe won't have an en suite. Food, activities, staff and care will all be the same. Council funded most of their pension goes to pay for care, leaving a small allowance to pay for toiletries, haircuts, presents. This may or may not be a problem eg an elderly bald man would have much lower costs than an elderly woman with lots of hair!

And only some of the privately funded homes take council funded so still lack of choice in where to go - it's very difficult to get someone into a home on council funding and often ends up being a sudden thing after an incident like a fall and they've ended up in hospital, so you pretty much have to take what's available at that time, which may be miles from friends/family, not reachable by public transport for visiting etc.

“It's not just having a choice of which care home it's when. The council will only pay for a place in a home when it is really absolutely necessary and 4 visits a day isn't enough.”

This is the absolute crux of it, more so than the cinema room and the choice of activities. If you can pay for care, you (or your attorney if you don’t have mental capacity) can choose when it starts.

What @countrygirl99 says above. If you fund yourself you choose not only which home but WHEN you go.

There's often a quite lengthy phase of needing four care visits a day, but someone else still has to sort out cleaning, house maintenance, laundry, shopping. The carers will only heat up ready meals or possibly make a sandwich, there's no other cooking going on. I've seen a distant frail elderly relative getting so so anxious about home security, living on their own, at risk of scammers. Struggling to get out so dependent on Wiltshire Farm Foods deliveries. But no actual
nursing care needs so if she'd been dependent on council funding no chance of going into a home.

She had the choice to sell her home and go into residential care - suddenly no worries about maintenance, high quality nutritious meals without having to think about shopping or cooking, activities and companionship. It gave her a whole new lease of life.

And, further to what @EmotionalBlackmail says, it may be that some people in the private home have LA finding and private top up.

Also, there simply aren’t enough carers exacerbated by covid and brexit. So you might need 4 care visits a day but only get one and have to pay privately if you want more.

How about 24 hour care?

@SueVineer it's a shame those providing the 24hours care are not paid very well.

Care homes make incredible profits.

Private day care can be £8-£10 per hour per child, at that rate, 24/7 care would be 6-7k pcm.

Appreciate that ratios are different etc, but care homes include all food not just lunch, as well as antisocial hours.

Inheritance is always a lottery. You can’t expect other people to pay for your parents personal care and accommodation so you can get a windfall of money you didn’t earn. Their care - they should pay for it.

A lot of care homes have gone bust over the years. It’s simply not the case they are making incredible profits- care is extremely expensive to provide.

I absolutely agree carers should be paid more but that will push up costs further.