Protecting property if parents go into care

[Abwettar]

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone can give me some insight regarding protecting my parent's home from care home fees?

The current situation is that I am an only child, there is no other family. Aside from the house, there are no other assets. My parents have joint ownership of their house, worth around 100k, and are both currently living there. They are both in poor health, my dad has been diagnosed with terminal cancer and my mam has been diagnosed with dementia - however they both have capacity to understand the situation at the moment. They have always been adamant on me getting the house after they pass.

There are no plans for either of them to go into a care home, I would like for them to stay in the house as long as it's safe to do so, with care from myself and carers going in throughout the day.

I was looking into putting the home into a trust, but I have read some conflicting information on if this would be considered deprivation of assets due to their poor health.

My question is, if both my parents were to make a will and each leave their 50% share of the house to me, would this protect at least part of the house? For instance, if one of my parents passed away, would their half of the house be protected from care home fees, even in the situation that the other parent had to go into a care home?

Any advice on this situation would be greatly appreciated

Thank you

@Negroany thanks for taking time to explain all that. It's mind blowing 🤯

Especially when you consider the people with those sorts or sums will pass plenty on long before they become old or frail.
Even if its passed on in the way of property rather than cash, so it doesn't affect the child's benefits payments but giving cash does!

Those aren't the people who need to worry about the cost of care homes or their cash getting blown before their kids are set up.

Something just wrong in the way the UK operates the rich get richer while the poor stay poor.

@Whenwillglorioussummercome If I was ruler, ALL money left when someone died would be handed to the state. And if people spend before they die as a result, then great for our economy. We'd have far better public services too.

the problem with this is if people misjudge when they’ll die and spend up too early. A policy of money going to the state will encourage spending as you say, but we may be looking at decades of otherwise wealthy people suddenly having no money because they’ve spent it needing to live off the state.

(pretty much everyone I know in their 40s are sort of convinced they will die at roughly the same age as their parents and in roughly the same way, I’m also convinced I’ll get dementia at roughly the same age as my mum has and am planning based on that. I might be one of those people who’s still doing cryptic crosswords at 90.)

But if you are still reading @Abwettar - get your dad to change his will and leave his share to you. If he dies first, then your mums money will pay for her care but there’s no reason to presume his money should also pay for her care.

Also - and this is important - make sure they aren’t holding out from using care homes when they need to out of the idea they have a duty to preserve as much of their estates for you. Be clear if they need more care than you and visiting carers can give, it’s ok to use care homes. I have known elderly people suffer because they won’t access the care they need (and can afford) because they feel they need to leave a good amount for their children. Be clear you don’t mind if it’s spent if they need to spend it.

@FancyBiscuitsLevel
Your missing part of the issue. They don't have lots of cash savings the modest amount money they do have, is tied up in the house.

They can't just decide to use a care home. That will come down to the LA deciding when the Mum isn't able to live at home. Because the LA will need to fund it.

But we’re not talking about people abusing the benefits system, are we? You’re talking about taxpayers picking up the tab for your parents’ care because you would like your inheritance.

Exactly

Not just tax payers though

Tax funded people are paid for by
our council taxes and
Self funders in the same care home. So self funders pay for themselves and strangers in the next room from their own savings and assets……
If it’s not right that taxpayers pay ( which is a bit odd as this is supposed to be the welfare state system but hayho )
why is it right that self funders also pay for others in the home. A substantial amount as well.

If our council taxes fully funded every penny needed for those that can’t pay after all of their assets are taken into account ( they aren’t as it stands ) then the system would at least be ‘sort of’ fair
The system however uses other pensioners money to prop up local councils underfunding because actually the tax payer or rather council tax money doesn’t

That’s an utter disgrace.

This results in hugely inflated fees for those that pay and people decide against using care homes at all. As the fees rise so will less funders paying into it and on and on it goes until someone realises not only is the whole system is a shambles but utterly unfair…. It’s Brocken already and will get worse as less people own homes anyway.

Time will tell

The other thing is if the Op is right in what she's saying they lived in poverty to pay for the house.
If they had stayed in rented accommodation they would possibly have been entitled to Housing Benefit or the equivalent back in the day.
Op hasn't been back for a while but I wouldn't be surprised if it's an ex-council house, based on its value. So they could have had a nicer life, in the same house getting a bit of help with the rent instead of scrimping and scraping to pay the mortgage.
An then they'd get the care home fees paid.

The whole system is a warped game of chance. Designed to keep low income people down.

Time will definitely tell what will happen in the future.
My guess, we will no longer keep people existing when their quality of life dwindles. Wee bit of a saving on the care home fees there.

The whole system is a warped game of chance. Designed to keep low income people down.

Even if it isn’t by design, it’s what happens. The very rich can afford whatever care is needed, the upper middles earners have often achieved high enough earnings of their own to not be relying on inheritance, but the middles and lower middles absolutely do.

An inheritance of £100,000 could transform the life of children or grandchildren. In terms of nursing home fees it represents less than a year of care. Gone, pouf, just like that. And the council takes over anyway.

Who decides that we are ‘keeping people existing’.
Most people in care homes are doing more than just existing. That sounds like end of life stuff, lying there not knowing what’s going on. That’s not what people in care homes are doing.