Gifting money to myself and siblings with a deputyship order

[Notright77]

I am a deputy for my Fathers estate. Unfortunately he is now in care for life. He is very happy and settled in a wonderful, private care home. We are selling his house and using the funds to pay for his care. However, he only needs a certain amount to secure his care in the home for life. He will have more than enough money to live on, for the rest of his life, with pensions and other savings. Once the house is sold there would effectively be around £70k left which should technically go straight into his bank but I think it’s a shame me and my siblings can’t have it. It won’t make any difference at all to him and will just go on more care home fees. Has anyone been in the situation and had the money? I know there are strict rules around deputyship but I know he would rather we had the money than it go towards more care home fees.

I can understand it is tempting to have the money and you feel your DF care won't be affected.
But, morally, who funds social services so who will pick up the bill when you have taken the money that might have self funded a bit longer. A case of sponging off the estate when you can afford not to.

Personally I’d get a chequebook and start writing cheques rather than risk being investigated for cash transactions.

That's quite funny. I don't think you are showing any ability to think differently.

And frankly being a higher rate tax payer has nothing to do with it. I'm glad you're not trying to tax dodge there but so what?

Just get those meticulous accounts out and claim what you're owed.

Tbf the person you're replying to didn't say THEY specifically won't end up in care, they said that MOST of us won't end up in care, and of course they are right.

To a certain extent I do get why the OP is asking. The OP has already made it clear that she would never do anything illegal. Personally, I don't condone the idea of avoiding paying and allowing the council adult social services to pick up the bill but I do recognise why the OP is enquiring (perhaps more for her siblings than herself?). While as a deputy her duty is solely to her father's affair and not the interest of her siblings, its hard not to think perhaps you need to look into this area just to avoid the potential challenge from your siblings in years to come that a legal course of action did exist and should have been taken. I think the OP understands that diverting the funds would result in a deprivation of assets action but as a deputy I would want to demonstrate to my siblings by seeking legal advice that no course of action is available.

I’m not wrong. If you self fund for 2 years then they will except the SS rate from that point.

I just have an issue with people being so judgey when they can’t guarantee they won’t need the same help. Unless she’s a multimillionaire in which case I’ll shut my mouth as I’m sure she would be able to self fund as much care as she (or a loved one) would ever need

Thank you for not jumping to conclusions. I genuinely don’t care if I don’t get a penny but I’m supposed to act on behalf of my Dad and I know he would want me to try to ensure there’s something left for us. Personally, there’s one sibling in particular I would like to see get something- I help them as much as I can. I appreciate people will have an opinion on SS paying though.

I was specifically accused of being a tax dodger- I was answering someone who had decided from this post that I was a tax dodging benefits cheat. I’m open to and understand other’s opinions but some of these comments are ridiculous.

This is a good idea- thank you

I get where you’re coming from

Thank you. It looks like any unusual gift giving wouldn’t be allowed.

My relative was in a similar home apart from it was three years self funding. Essentially they don’t accept LA rates for new residents but if you self fund for a set minimum they will accept LA rates going forward. Provided SS assesses you as in need of a care home and is willing to pay.

If Op deprives him of assets then they may assess as if those assets are still his and say they will not pay. As the person who disbursed the funds it will be op who is responsible for their replacement rather than any beneficiaries.

It’s not free money it comes out the pot that’s being used to pay for schools, road maintenance, public services etc All the things that are being cut to the bone to pay for the ever increasing care bill.

Only if you are social services funded at that point. If you aren't they will still charge you the full cost. They won't reduce the care bill at 2 years if you can still afford to pay it.

They reduce it to the social services rate and continue to take payment from them when your funds run out (after a minimum of 2 years self funding).

Well yes they will accept the social services rate but nothing obliges social services to pay it!

I am afraid you have definitely misunderstood
Speak to the care homes manager and dads social worker for clarification. He has to pay until his funds are less than threshold. Those are the social care rules.

I have many years of experience in this field.

Think of it another way
if you had chosen a cheaper LA rated care home straight away do you think they would pay from now?
No they would not!

The issue is not the rate it is that he is assessed as a full cost payer because he has savings over threshold. What ever the care home fees are the LA will not pay them until he has assets under threshold.

FWIW you have made a good decision to put him into the best place that he wanted to go to although it costs more money. You usually get what you pay for in care.
This way his money will go down quicker than if you eked it out in a cheaper place which would only save money for the council. You can run his money down faster by legitimately buying things for his own good and claiming your expenses within the rules. He is also entitled to some spending money himself for stuff like newspapers, haircuts and outings and by making the small gifts allowed but you cannot do more than this.

In the end whatever is left will be your inheritance and 23,000 to distribute (what you are left after social care take over) is more than many people get.

I didn’t say I won’t end up in care. I said the majority of people won’t end up in care. I was simply disputing your assertion that everyone ends up in care having their fees paid by social services. Which is blatantly false.

My point was more, those in glass houses. It’s easy to make judgements when you’re not in the situation and none of us know what’s around the corner

Judgements? You’re the one trying to fleece tax payers!

@Notright77 That's true - but only if Social Services have agreed that they need to fund your DF's place.

The issue here is that they will, without question, decide that he has deliberately deprived himself of assets, if the money from the sale of the house, is no longer available because it was given to you and your siblings. So they will take that missing money into account as if he still had it - so they won't then fund him until they deem that however much it was, has been spent in full on funding the care home ( or other necessary expenditure). THEN they will pay for him.

I understand your thinking, but there is no loophole that you can use to prevent the money from the house sale potentially all being used up on his care home fees. Everybody would be doing the same thing, if it were that easy.

To be fair, after two years they’re pretty institutionalised and no longer capable of looking after themselves safely. I think (guess!) most residents would probably meet the criteria for SS to fund. Obvs it’s a risk though and SS could well turn round and say 4 visits a day at home is all they’ll pay for.

You're still missing the point of the pp. She wasn't saying what you think.

What does 'more than his fair share of taxes' mean? He will have paid taxes at the rate set by the Government, like everyone does (apart from tax dodgers). Unless he has made a voluntary contribution to the UK Treasury out of the goodness of his heart, he hasn't paid 'more than' his fair share of taxes.

No I understand her point- I was just reiterating mine