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.

Reading in more detail, I think you mean the former.

I don’t think this would stop the LA putting a charge on the house, or looking at the whole thing if you both went into care rather than one dying and DS inheriting.

Yes, the former, and if we both went into care, possibly yes.

But unless you’ve got savings, you or/and DH are going to be dependent on your LA for care but there may be a time when you or him want care of a certain standard and in an area of your choice, which you won’t have because you can’t pay the fees (if I’ve understood properly).

It's deprivation of assets so it won't work unless he did it 7 years ago before the diagnosis

Local authorities can go back as far as they want if they suspect deprivation of assets

@benfoldsfivefan
I will have a very good NHS pension, so that and my state pension will go a long way to paying for my care. DH can choose to top it up if he wants/needs to. I will make that decision if and when I need to for him.
MIL is currently in an NH. We have just sold her house (LPA) and invested the money. Her state and teachers pension plus her Scottish government care allowance pay for her care atm, but we can top it up from the income from that investment if we need to, as it is her money.

@MrsDanversGlidesAgain indeed

My Mum's estate is all going on care .. it is what it is .

The arrangement @gingercat02 describes is very common, the aim being to protect some of the estate for their DC.

Anyone savvy enough to do this is likely to have substantial means or assets, therefore they are unlikely to meet the threshold for financial assistance for quite a long time. In the meantime they will be meeting the full cost out of income and savings, which can’t be avoided. The care system still gets more money out of these clients than someone who has very limited assets to take into account, even if they don’t get the whole lot.

Local Authority Safeguarding social worker here!

I could write a book on the shenanigans that solicitors and siblings do to preserve any inheritance and avoid paying the care fees for their parents, but I won't for confidentiality reasons and in case the salacious gossip mongering tabloids get hold of it.

Suffice to say, putting granny and her wheelchair up a long winding flight of steps in the servants' room of a manor house after she has put her house in the family trust fund and then her son who had LPA for finances getting a private carer in for granny to cry to and her needs to be met so the family could save on care home fees, is just one example of misplaced trust in children.

Another is children with LPA for finances believing that once their relative has been diagnosed with dementia, it can give them the rights to raid their bank and building society accounts.

Unfortunately for them, we can and do get LPA's revoked through the Court of Protection and we can take over your loved ones finances or assets if we have good reason to believe you are not acting in your loved ones best interests.

Often there is a lot of squabbling between siblings. We have seen it all.

Nothing surprises us any more. And the posters who say that an expensive care home will automatically give you better personal care? Sorry, that is not always the case. The expensive care homes are businesses and run for a profit and the glossier their brochure doesn't mean to say they aren't frequently on our warning "traffic light" system.

Think long and hard before you try and pull a fast one over the care and treatment of your loved one.

Unfortunately for many people, morality and ethics come way down the list and financial gain is their top priority.

One thing to remember is that local authorities pay as little as they can to badly funded care homes.

My mum had to fund her own care (rightly so) and we got her into a far far better home than the LA were pushing for. I'd be wary of relying on the LA if I could afford better.

The LA wouldn't have agreed to putting her in the better home and us topping up (I checked as was worried her money would run out) as they didn't have a deal with the nice one we found.

And as PP mentioned the LA just go for any home in their area. They wanted to put my mum in somewhere 15 miles away that would have meant her sister couldn't get to her (rubbish public transport links). Instead we got somewhere round the corner and she had lots of visitors.

I think most people want to live healthy lives, free of pain. And the freedom from pain is probably the most urgent need. Difficult to know whether refusing medication will simply cause more pain without doing anything to shorten life.

Yep! Even the minimum wage carers who work there will be subbing them.

Yep! Even the minimum wage carers who work there will be subbing them.
They'll also be subbing people who could afford to pay for medical care, child benefit for people earning twice as much as them, and all sorts of things which benefit people earning much more than them.

I agree in principle with self funding.

After all, you are selling your home & paying to live in another.

What I don't agree with is that self funders subsidise non self funders.

Also that people with dementia don't seem to get any funding at all & pay the full cost of their care.

The 7 years is irrelevant. Are you getting confused with the 7 years survival before a gift is regard as not art of your estate for inheritance tax purposes?

I think I'd broadly agree with that. It's not that you're paying for your living costs, it's that you're paying for a level of care that you cannot afford out of your income (that is possibly several times your income), and that your requirement is because of acquiring the "wrong" disease. And of course that you're contributing to someone else's funding as well - in effect, paying an extra £10,000 in tax every year.

@MereDintofPandiculation yes probably I'm not a lawyer

My mum needs care , her estate will pay for it .. it is what it is but I'm not a scrounger like a lot of people

I will use her estate in the best way possible to make sure she has the best care for however long that is .

Any misuse of her money at this point is deprivation of assets and I am not going to prison for anyone ✅

in effect, paying an extra £10,000 in tax every year.

Yes I was also thinking that.

My dad worked all his life, paid his taxes-decided to buy a house with his money.

Then not only does he have to sell to be cared for (dementia)-he also has to sub someone else!

Funding for care isn't disease specific.

If someone has cancer and needs care because of it then then they will be financially assessed just like someone with dementia.

However, the difference in that situation is that once someone with cancer is at the stage where they need care they will often be terminally unwell with a rapidly deteriorating health condition which would mean they would probably be eligible for fast track fully funded continuing health care.

Similar someone with really complex needs due to their dementia, such as aggressive behaviour, high falls risk, medication refusal may also be eligible for fully funded continuing health care.

I've no idea how everyone knows how much people in the next room are paying, but as said up thread, hardly anyone will be paying £0, those who are fully funded by the NHS will be regardless of whether they have millions or pennies in the bank

Anyone needing local authority funding who genuinely has nothing but benefits, or those who have somehow manged to dispose of their assets will still be paying something from their pension towards their care.

minimum wage earners aren't subbing anyone.

You need to be in the top 40% income bracket to stop being a net drain and become a net contributor to the state

My parents became tenants-in-common so even a portion (however tiny) of the value of their house with come to my sibling and I if the house needs to be sold to pay care fees. I don't know exactly how it works, but if Dad dies, for example, that means his half will go to us, his kids. If Mum needs to go in a home, her half can be used to pay care fees but my sibling & I keep the half that was Dad's. If mum doesn't need care fees to be paid then her portion comes to my sibling and me. At least that's how it was explained to me. Maybe someone in the legal profession can put me straight.

Self funders subsidise LA funded beds significantly. I saw just how much when the LA took over her funding. And not all private homes are profit making businesses. Many of them are run by charities, the British Legion for example.

It isn’t a fair system. Some may argue that it’s morally wrong to try and hive off their DC’s inheritance. But honestly if you saw what you get for your money you’d swallow hard at the thought of all your life’s savings going into it.

What happens if one dies and the other needs to downsize/move to a bungalow/flat but needs more than half the money?

What happens if one dies and the other needs to downsize/move to a bungalow/flat but needs more than half the money?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the half destined for the DC is held in trust by the surviving spouse. They could spend it all if they needed to.