Am I right that most elderly people must self-fund care if they have assets?

[Coffeeisnotmycupoftea]

People telling me time and again that my mum could get care home fees paid for by the government and I am certain they are wrong.

Mum is in the advancing stages of Alzheimer's having suffered now for 8 years. Between my father, my sister and I we have been caring for her ourselves. We now have a team of carers coming in 3 times a day as we are trying are best to keep her at home, for as long as possible.

We really don't want to put mum into a home if we can help it even though it is becoming a struggle (more for dad as he feels he has no life). This is not because of the fear of losing money as it's costing over £1k per week for the home carers as it is. It's more that we can keep an eye on her care at home and have yet to find a home we like the look of (have been viewing quite a few of late) but the truth is that mum will more than likely need to go into a care home within the next 6 months to a year as her care needs progress.

My parents have assets. I have looked into everything for them and have had SS round to do assessments etc and each and every time we are told care would need to be paid for in full by my parents (with AA and pensions included) because they have well over the £23,250 threshold. My parents FA has also given this information to us. We are fine with this and fully aware if you have any assets you need to pay for your care.

However, so many people we know tell us that mum should and would qualify for 'free' care. They seem to believe that continuing healthcare is really easy to get and I keep hearing their stories that their mum or dad are getting getting care home fees paid for free despite them owning property or having lots of savings etc. My sister is now pushing for us to find out more because someone she works for is telling her we absolutely must not pay for care home fees as we can get it paid for (??).

I am fed up telling them that isn't the case for a large percentage of people and most will have to fund their own care fees whether that is at home care or in a care facility.

I am right, aren't I? That most people with substantial savings and/or a home of their own will need to fund their own care? (I understand a house can not be sold whilst a spouse is living there but if they die the house will need to be sold to pay for the fees?)

But half the house is in her name. If my father were to die and mum is still in a care home won't they require her half of the house to fund her care?

But note this only assists if your dad died whilst your mum was alive and in care.

As long as your dad had left his half of the house to someone other than your mum then your mum would only have half the value of the house in her pool of assets (which would then need to be used to fund her care). It basically protects half of the house in this particular situation only.

"...so then the survivor inherits it and it can all be used for care fees"

It is increasingly common for couples to own their home as 'tenants in common' rather than 'joint tenants'.

What this means is that, instead of both jointly owning the whole home (like with a joint bank account), each person owns a seperate 50% of the home.

In this situation, it is usual to leave your 50% of the house to your children (or anyone else you like) and the surviving spouse is given the right to remain in the house for the rest of their life.

So, in the situation you give, the surviving spouse would have their 50% of the house eventually taken for care home fees, but the 50% owned by the spouse that died first is protected from being taken.

"If mum is still in care after her savings run out I know the LA will more than likely cover the cost but once dad has passed the final bill will be taken from the sale of their home?"

"But half the house is in her name."

I take it from this that they own the property as tenants in common?

As long as your father remains alive and living in the family home (or if you or one of your siblings are living there and are over the age of 60) then the value of her share of the home is ignored.

If your mum passes away while your dad is living at home then there will be nothing taken from your mum's estate by the LA as the house is ignored as long as your dad (or a child over the age of 60) is living there.

.

"If my father were to die and mum is still in a care home won't they require her half of the house to fund her care?"

Yes, that is when they start counting the value of the house. If your father were to pass away while your mum is in care then the LA will count the value of her share of the house from the date of your dad's death.

An example, your mum goes into care and the LA cover the costs for three years until she passes away. Your dad passes away after two years, a year before your mum dies.

In this situation, the value of the home is ignored for the first two years but the costs for the final year will be set against her share of the home.

If your dad dies while your mum is still

Hi OP,
I'm so sorry, I've been where you are. Almost the same scenario. You are broadly correct:

• Once you are over the limit, your mum will need to pay her own way. Her home won't be taken into account at that point I expect because SS will value her 'half' of a home. As your DF is living in it, it can't be sold, the value of her half share is therefore effectively zero and that is why it is not a consideration. If your father is no longer living in the house, that changes.
• Continuing Health Care is a thing but it is really hard to get. I know, my mum actually got it and I remember the process! We had to prove she needed the care FOR MEDICAL REASONS not for the purposes of care. Can explain more on this if it helps
• I also had a difficult time convincing my DF it needed to happen. He made himself seriously ill over it. We were able to persuade him eventually FOR HER SAKE she needed to go into a care home. Again, I can go into detail on this in terms of what you can expect as this progresses - and as you know, it will only get worse.
• I remember the very 'helpful' family and friends and their stories about how a friend of a friend did this or that. If your sister believes it should be looked into, well, I assume she is a fully functioning adult, tell her to go ahead! Last thing you need is well meaning observers creating extra work for you. Resist

You are welcome to PM me if you would like to discuss with someone who has been there.

Ah, the "Friend" who gets this that and the other. FIL used to get this from his mates when he was caring for MIL. it was bollocks every time. Got him all excited then he was raging because "the mean old council/DHSS/NHS" wouldn't give him what he was never entitled to.

Sorry, but just a very tiny point:

"As your DF is living in it, it can't be sold, the value of her half share is therefore effectively zero and that is why it is not a consideration."

The fact that a property cannot be sold or is effectively zero is not the reason that the value of the home is disregarded.

It simply says in The Care and Support (Charging and Assessment of Resources) Regulations 2014 that the value of any premises occupied by a qualifying relative - eg spouse - as their main or only home must be disregarded when the LA is calculating capital (Regulation 18(2) and Schedule 2 para 4(1) ).

Yes - we were fortunate.

Do you work in insurance? I don't but from a consumer perspective surely no one would buy cover if it never paid out? So policies would need to cover older people before the "utterly desperate and unbearable need" stage that the current system of "social insurance" provides (or doesn't).

i was thinking of products like private health cover, where are there are various levels
and they certainly do pay out if the conditions are met. You could choose fancy homes, or a limited choice of homes, or care at home... And "utterly unbearable" or just "struggling to cope" when it would kick in.

And absolutely, the risk being insured against is the risk of not dying before care is needed. There would be no need for the insurers to refuse to pay anyone's claim (apart from it being bad business): they could coin it just from those who worry but either die suddenly and quickly or are able to cope at home.

I think it seems to depend a lot on area, sadly. We got CHC for Mum without any battle whatsoever, infact it was suggested to me through the nurses and they completed the whole thing and the only part we really got involved with was choosing which nursing home she went to. She had copd, Crohn’s disease, bowel cancer (not terminal at that point) and some issues with depression etc. She was 70 and owned her own home outright. She never had to pay anything towards her care. Before going into the nursing home she was fully funded for 4 home visits a day. We are in Norfolk. I am disabled myself and have a disabled child (I’m an only child) and Mum and I had a very complex relationship so I wasn’t able to care for her myself beyond visits etc.

When some people say it’s easy to get they’re not lying, it just seems different people have different experiences.

We were told the same thing so tried when DM was diagnosed with end-stage terminal cancer (ovarian, known as the silent killer, we later learned). They discharged her, but only to a nursing facility. On paper she qualified for 'continuing care' from the NHS.

It was refused. She was only there for a month. We were presented with a bill for £6,000 shortly after she died.

Absolutely agree with this.

dementia is a hideous disease to have to deal with. Hope you get sorted OP.

The only person I know who had funding despite having assets over the threshold was my mother. She had cancer and was discharged from hospital after treatment to a care home because she didn’t feel confident enough to look after herself at home. She was told that she would be funded for three months and then her case would be reviewed. That didn’t happen because she died within a few weeks.

Dementia does seem to be treated differently. I have never really understood why. I have had four relatives with dementia who ended up in care homes, the first of whom died in the 1990s. They all had to self-fund.

We originally had CC for our Dad after he had a very major stroke, but after 3 months they re-assessed and took it away, despite him not being able to speak, walk, being double incontinent and having no capacity at all to make decisions - we appealed and lost.

www.beaconchc.org will tell you all you need to know about NHS Continuing Health Care Funding. Their advice is free.

I got this for my late OH on appeal.

The parameters are very strict, but with the proper help then they should get their entitlements, should they fulfil the criteria. The person has to need help in a number of categories - e.g. physical, mental, psychological, self care etc. It comes from the NHS so there needs to be a strong medical element.

Ask Beacon and not the local hospital/surgery as the advice they give is in my experience always wrong. Only go to them when you are armed with the correct info from Beacon.

And Age UK have brilliant summaries of all the funding issues on their website.

I beg your pardon - it is www.beaconchc.co.uk

There are such things as 'care needs annuities' that can be bought. They're very pricey though, and annuities, not insurance. Could be worthwhile if there's a large estate.

Where i worked you had to have evidence of 3 years funding, but there was the guarantee. Whereabouts in the country are you? I can PM you the name if it would be local to you

You can buy these to cover a guaranteed portion of the fees if one to cover full fees is too expensive.

Yeah, I looked into for my late Mum, but she actually got CHC funding (and then passed away within a few months). We were modelling on the shortfall between pension income and attendence allowance, and care home fees with an annual percentage increase built in. It would have cost several hundred thousand pounds.

MIL had a severe stroke that left her paralysed, incontinent and non verbal but her care needs were stable and could be done by carers not a nurse so no CHC.
FIL had metastatic prostate cancer, diabetes atrial fibrillation amongs other things and and an intolerance to pain relief. He couldn't tolerate opiates at all and anything else other than paracetamol caused severe diarrhea and vomiting. This meant his blood sugars, heart rate and bloods needed frequent monitoring and his medication adjusted on a daily basis. He got CHC.

Yes, I do understand this, we considered it with Dparents but decided against. I should have said "if joint tenants". I must admit I assumed most were joint tenants.

Most people of this age do own their home as joint tenants however it’s a very simple legal process to change it. It would only cost a few thousand pounds max and could save hundreds of thousands.

"It would only cost a few thousand pounds..."

In England & Wales (I presume also in Scotland?) you can do it yourself free of charge.

You need to complete application form SEV to enter a Form A restriction on severance of a joint tenancy by agreement or notice:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/form-a-restriction-application-to-enter-sev

There is no charge for doing this.

However, you would likely want to update your will after doing this and this is where you really do need a solicitor. A will that will cover the situation where the couple are tenants in common and the surviving spouse has a right to occupy the property will probably cost around £500 each - so around £1,000 for two people.