This is going to sound so mercenary, but...

[PinkFlamingoDance]

It is unavoidable that parent goes into more suitable accommodation and sells their place. They need to be safer and several carers each day isn't cutting it.

I'm all for residential accommodation but this will mean any assets will be spent on the fees up to £23,250.

As far as I understand £3k can be gifted each year without breaking any laws. Is this correct?

I have a sibling so that would be £3k each per year.

I had an email from solicitor today about house sale and get on well with him so could ask him to check this isn't illegal. Thanks!

At least there is some attempt to share around the cost of public services. The way we fund social services is akin to saying “you have cancer? Well, you can’t expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab while you’ve got savings to pay for your treatment”

Have they even had an assessment from the older peoples team that they need residential care?

You need to get this first.

There may be other options to allow them to remain in the community for as long as possible.

Do they go to full time day care?

Have telecare alarms fitted in the home?

Tried live in care?

Councils won't fund residential care unless they assess it as necessary.

You can self pay if you want but if your assets run out then social work say they don't meet their criteria they can be kicked out of their residential home!

The average life expectancy of a care home resident is 2 years so you are likely to still be left with around £100k inheritance which is well under the inheritance tax threshold anyway.

Also make sure they are claiming everything inc attendance allowance/ carers allowance/ pension credit etc.

Ask CAB for benefits advice.

@MereDintofPandiculation a lot of the help isn't medical though. Someone with cancer/heart disease etc isn't provided with a cleaner, shopping help, someone to chat to or someone to keep an eye on their admin however incapable they are of dealing with it. The medical needs are covered it's the rest that's a big problem. We would all be happy with a government that covered the lot but the majority will vote for tax cuts and therein lies a lot of the problem. So either the individual pays where they can or we impose on younger generations, possibly for decades.

@PinkFlamingoDance There are two separate things to think about, people often get them confused

1. Inheritance tax. As PP said, your dad is likely to be below the threshold and won’t be liable anyway. But any gifts in the last 7 years of life are regarded as still belonging to the person and potentially liable to tax, with the exception of the first £3000 of gifts (and fixed sums as wedding presents if applicable)
2. Deprivation of assets. If he gives away money which means he meets the threshold for LA payments sooner, they can treat this as if he still had the money. So if he gives away £50000, when you go to the LA and say “he’s down to £23k, can you contribute?” they’ll crawl through his finances and say “he’s actually got £93k, so no, we can’t contribute “ But he’s OK to reasonable birthday and Christmas presents out of his income if it’s something he was always doing and it didn’t start when care costs loomed on the horizon.

Don’t even think of transferring the house to your names, it won’t work.

Please explain how using old people's assets to pay for their care destroys the lives of entire families, bankrupting people who have their whole lives ahead of them? Which happens in places like the US when working age people get cancer (even health insurance doesn't cover ALL costs. If they have it).

Also please explain why the taxpayer should foot the bill so people can get some free money that they've done nothing to earn?

I say that as someone who stands to inherit substantially. People's assets are meant for their old age not for their kids to inherit. If it all went on care home fees, fine.

Old age care homes are one of the few things where self-paying is clearly the right thing to do. What else is the money meant for? Bear in mind that if there's still a surviving spouse it isn't claimed and that's fine but to 'preserve inheritance' isn't justified.

There are too many people living longer now requiring expensive care. Not enough young people to pay the taxes to support everything for free. That's just how it is.

Also as a 'young un' I doubt that half the things old people get now will even be around by the time we're old.

Nope.
75 years ago people didn't die from hideous, drawn out diseases like dementia, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's. When they had a huge stroke they died, they weren't kept alive by "miraculous modern medicine" so that, instead, they could sit in a prison of their own body in a wheelchair for 4 years plus, unable to speak and ruining the lives and wellbeing of the people around them whose lives have become about blocked catheters, pressure sores and communication frustrations.
who knows what horrors we might all be able to develop in the future, unthought of now

Someone with dementia isn’t provided with anyone to keep an eye on their admin either, or with someone to chat to. Shopping help and cleaner is provided only when they’re in a care home, and they pay through the nose for that. Someone in hospital has all that provided free.

I suspect with the big increase in dementia (which is unlikely to be helped by any change in the law on assisted dyeing) the inherent unfairness will become more obvious (yes, it’s unfair that some people inherit-and others don’t, but given we allow inheritance, it’s unfair that it is governed by the random chance of illness) something will be sorted out - probably the already suggested and rejected solutions of either a levy attached to IHT or an income or wealth tax on all elderly people. Too late for my DC though.

@Peoplemakemedespair and where’s the money going to come from to pay for care then? This attitude is crazy and completely shortsighted. Our DC know they’ll only inherit from us if we’re lucky enough to avoid a care home, but if that’s where we end up of course we’ll bloody pay for it. 🙄

Also please explain why the taxpayer should foot the bill so people can get some free money that they've done nothing to earn? That’s already the situation, isn’t it? Not only can your children have the bulk of any assets you no longer need because you’re dead, the first £325k to £1m isn’t even taxed.

But only if you’re lucky enough not to suffer a degenerative illness.

I’m not of course suggesting we should pay for all our healthcare, just pointing out we treat the degenerative illnesses of old age differently.

Some sort of levy on the wealth or income of older people would not place the burden on younger people

But if you need non medical care because of any illness you need to pay for it yourself if you have assets above the threshold. It's not just dementia. Dad had many things wrong with him but dementia wasn't any of them. He still had to pay for his personal care and if he had lived slightly longer his care home. FIL also had many conditions but not dementia. His personal care was funded as he had always been in low paid work so had few assets but he still had to pay for someone to clean, garden and shop etc.
The financial "luck" comes if care needs are short or if it's a sudden unexpected death. And in being lucky in having parents who are able to build up assets in the first place.

OP: is it likely that your parents’ estate would even be liable for IHT?

If they were married, the threshold combines. With a house with £150k their savings would need to be enormous to incur IHT.

Remember also that their ongoing pension income and I think Attendance Allowance go towards care home fees so it doesn’t all have to come from the house capital.

There's also something called ongoing care or something like that, when mum went in for respite recently, which was paid for privately, the nursing home took off something like £200 a week from the weekly fee. I can't remember the proper name for it

I don’t think OP is even talking about IHT, rather about potential deprivation of assets with regard to care fees.

OP you mention you have receipts for things you have bought for your parents, reimbursements for these wouldn’t be included as gifts, they surely are genuine expenses that your parents can cover.

My understanding is that if your parent is already at the point of needing residential care, then it’s too late to start stashing / giving money away to prevent it going into the ‘self funded care’ pot.

If your parent was younger and in better health, with little to no care needs, it would be possible to argue that they are able to do what they want with their assets at that point in time, and harder to prove that they were intentionally aiming to deprive themselves of assets to avoid care costs. Much harder to do when they are already at that stage.

Until dementia, Parkinson’s, etc are treated the same as terminal cancer I’m not going to get too hung in on the morality of the tax payer paying for care. It’s an utterly unfair system.

Worth considering renting out the house rather than selling it. With rents being as high as they are it may stack up for a while

Might cover 1 week in 4 unless it's a posh house in an expensive area. Care home costs likely to be around £1200 a week, possibly several hundreds more and the rent received will be after tax and costs. OP has already said it's a small place. Unless there is a very substantial pension income won't cover it.

Unlikely to cover anywhere near the full costs unless it's a huge house in a very desirable location. Plus tax and any costs for maintenance need to be paid out of the rent, plus letting agent fees, inventory fees etc.

And being a landlord is very onerous, with a lot of requirements to ensure tenants' safety eg gas and electrical certificates. Rental houses will soon have to reach a minimum standard of energy efficiency which many houses won't reach without a lot of work.

And it's very difficult to get tenants out, when/if you need to. In theory give two months' notice after the fixed period, but the reality is they can trash the place, stop paying rent and it takes months to evict them during which the rent isn't paid.

One parent died (the one I was close to and light of my life) from a stroke, they were in hospital until they died. In a strange way it was a magical time as it was my last moments with them.

Situation with other parent is miles more complex, they can't cope with independent living and the neighbours are terrified because of fire and emergency services out all the time. They don't get on with anyone. It cannot go on like this. I do realise this means I won't have an 'inheritance' as such but they need safer accommodation.

Of course I wouldn't let them transfer me a lump sum as that's illegal. Wondered if £3k per year would be acceptable.

I have an email letter from solicitor as I've dealt with house sale now. Solicitor + doctor have permission to deal with me. I'll read it later.

Parent needs to understand the money will not be 'theirs' anymore if they're moving into care/residential. They're not a home owner anymore.

@PinkFlamingoDance good luck. It's a tough gig.

@countrygirl99 thanks:)

It's a bit unfortunate it's happened like this but for parent's own safety they need 24 hour people around. I can't cope with anymore 3am calls about another fall and I'm an hour away, can't pick them up anyway as they're miles bigger than me, the ambulance gets there quicker.

They're not alcoholic (one glass of wine every two months), no vices as such. But they're 80 years old.

The next step will be trying to explain that once they go into residential care their money up to a certain point isn't theirs anymore.

Read solicitors letter and it's perfectly reasonable just states because of health issues they need more care and £23,250 is protected. I'll ask him about the £3k and if that's legal.

The constantly being on edge waiting for that call takes a toll. We only realised just how much once DHs parents were both gone and when the phone rang latish one evening we both noticed the instant tension and then the realisation that this time it wasn't a crisis. Just have my mum now. Like yours an hour away. It's an awkward distance. Too far to be able to pop round to change a light bulb etc without it taking up half the day but close enough to on call all.the time.

Exactly. What people might prefer, and what actually happens, are not necessarily the same. Why do people think they should get round the clock care for free?

This thread is so off topic, with all the moralising. OP has said repeatedly that she doesn't want to break any laws. Just answer the question from a legal perspective. If you can't, don't bother moralising. Yes I'm aware I'm contributing to the off topicness.