Protecting Inheritance from care home ...help me!!!

[lincolnpaul1]

Hi there,
Thanks for reading this first of all....
Summary:
My mother is ill and now in care (home) with Alzheimers. She is self-funding her care home fees but the money owed is being run up on her property (about 14K currently). I have Power of Attorney over her finances and she is not in the position to make any decisions now, so I make all these. She has her house which I am currently selling for her (120K). Some of the proceeds will go to pay off the debt. We will be left with about 100K capital in mum's account. Mum will continue to self fund her care (about 700£ per week) until her saving are down to about 20K. Mum wanted to protect her savings (as much as the 100K) and obviously didn't want it all to go to her care. Does anybody know how I can/what I can do to protect this to ensure it is passed onto family?

My mum was disabled and my dad knew if he died before her they would sell the house for her care, so he changed his will and left it to me and my sister with our mum as life tenant with no rent to pay.
He did die before her and social services came round and said she had an asset of £75k the house they where not happy when we told them it was not my mums asset is was ours and they couldn't sell it.
my mum died 2 years later and my sister and I sold the house which had then increased in value by £40k.
This was years ago now though, my dad died 1997 and my mum 1999 so no idea if anything like this can be done now.

Inheritance has always been a lottery though sablepoot. For the beneficiaries, it's only ever been a matter of luck. Some of us get born to parents who for whatever reason have assets to leave to us and the desire to do so, others don't. This simply adds another element to the process. It's no more or less unfair to miss out on money from one's parents because they needed it for care than it is to miss out because they didn't have it in the first place. It's no more or less unfair to have nothing to leave for your children because you spent everything on care than it is to have nothing to leave because you were always poor.

And really, with property having gone so utterly batshit, when people inherit sums from the sale of parental homes it's doubly unearned wealth. The person inheriting a home obviously didn't earn it, and the person leaving it almost certainly bought it for much less than it sells for now, in real terms. There are probably a few people dying now who first bought at the 07 peak, but most will have purchased decades ago. People whose homes now happen to be worth several times what they paid for them, inflation adjusted, didn't have any particular moral entitlement to that money in the first place. They just got lucky. They aren't owed any sympathy because they can't pass down what they never earned in the first place, and the beneficiaries certainly aren't. I'm sure many of them would rather be housed for free and be able to give the money they spend to their kids instead. So would lots of renters, but nobody seems too upset that they can't do it.

That money won't last long. The question will be whether the £20k she's allowed to keep will last her. (My mum needs pocket money for new clothes, haircuts, any trips etc..... So sad as she too was really proud of what she'd accumulated to pass on to us and never spent a penny that she didn't absolutely have to.)

...if a politician did some of the things on this thread they would be vilified in the press.

I know for your individual situation it seems unfair but looking at the bigger picture - if the rules weren't this way we'd all have to pay masses more tax!

Excellent post, harlotbronte.

Absolutely harlotbronte; if I choose to sell my home and spend the cash on expensive holidays, staying in the best hotels, or cruise holidays every year, no-one bats an eye lid.
But if I spend it being looked after in a care home, the thieving council / government are depriving my heirs.....
Yet, it all amounts to the same thing - I'm spending my money on a decent life for the remainder of it.

I don't really get this either.

My parents' money is my parents' money. It's not mine and not my children's. If they need to go into a care home, then of course they should use their savings / house to pay for whatever level of care they need and want. Why would I want them to have carefully 'sorted out' their finances and then be at the mercy of the state?

If you distribute her estate now then you could be caught for fraud from the government if her money runs out for care home fees

I'm afraid it's too late to do anything now, it needed sorting out before she got ill

Yea eve but they're politicians and MNers are different so can avoid tax without question

Yes Bronte, inheritance is always a matter of luck, so imo it would be better if fewer benefited from it than more, and the cost of social care was more equitably distributed across the generation that have underpaid their stamp to reduce the burden on later generations, rather than just the lucky few of that generation benefitting.

It's not that hard to understand. The rich get rich and stay rich, partly because they mind their money.

It's the same principle.

I'm not British, but there does seem to me to be a bit of a contradiction from a state that gives the population free medical care unless you are old?! What is that about? It seems v arbitrary and unfair as only the few who need care homes will have this clawback their wealth depleted this way.

Sorry, but what you are describing is the law and the way the system works.

Your mum will get help with the fees once her savings get down to the £20K.

You could purchase an annuity to pay the fees but it is a bit of a gamble TBH.

Wiltingfast if you need inpatient medical care, you get it in hospital. But this is about nursing care. If anyone of any age needs the sort of care that's being talked about here, care for the infirm and those with dementia etc, but are not ill enough to be in a hospital, the exact same rules will apply. A person who's 20 and has severe Alzheimers will have their eligibility to pay assessed in the same way as someone who's 90. It's just that the 20 year old is vanishingly unlikely to own a house, whereas a 90 year old probably does. Additionally, most of the people needing this type of care are elderly. Whereas there's not a large pool of 40 year olds in nursing homes.

Lastly, it's a bit daft to say the British state gives away free medical care unless you're old. For obvious reasons, a disproportionate amount of NHS spending goes on the elderly. You are much more likely to be getting free medical care from the state if you're 75 than if you're 25!

Actually there are loads of articles detailing all the age discrimination that exists in health and social care.

Yes, none of this changes the fact that the NHS doesn't provide free medical care except to the elderly. It provides free medical care disproportionately to the elderly, what with humans declining as we age and all.

Well children get free care too...

Interesting thread

This is a subject that was actually debated in court (the Coughlan judgment) and that's why Continuing Healthcare started. I can't remember all the ins and outs now but I went to a Continuing Healthcare(CHC) training course and basically it was acknowledged that the burden of providing health and nursing care in the community was disproportionately being put onto councils, thus CHC was implemented so that burden is shared by the NHS. If someone is assessed and found needing a certain level of help then they will be entitled to funding from the NHS via CHC.

The problem is that a lot of the problems elderly people incur are more what we call social problems. Many are 'medically fit', but that doesn't necessarily mean at their at full original health and able. This is something that people get a bit confused with sometimes - understandably. Many people ask why we are discharging their parents from hospital because 'they're not well'. The thing is these people aren't acutely ill and their condition isn't going to change, the situation they're now in is their new reality and something that isn't going to improve so they need help adjusting to their new self concept but also have a tailored plan of care in the community that enables them to fulfil their activities of daily living - with assistance or not.

Now in many cases this is for instance, a mobility issue that might make washing and dressing difficult. So they need carers to help them to do activities. They're not ill necessarily. This is social care and thus self funded and/or funded by the local authority.

Now in some cases this is more than that, the person might have a few morbidities and need regular nursing care. For example they might have end stage cancer or exacerbated COPD etc. They may not be suitable for a hospital bed anymore, or may wish to go home off their own back. they'll be assessed to see if the care and input they need is beyond the responsibility of the local authority and if it is, the NHS fund through Continuing Healthcare.

That's a really simplified explanation that touch doesn't upon those with high needs from disability etc but explains it a little bit. Elderly people aren't just left without healthcare. It's just distinguishing what are social issues and what are medical issues, as well as seeing who's responsibility it is to pay.

More about the CHC researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN04643

Yes sablepoot they do indeed, because everybody does. That's kind of the point. Not everybody except the elderly, but everybody full stop, although the elderly are the group costing most on average (much more than children) for obvious reasons. This is why the claim that the British state provides free medical care to everyone but the elderly was completely inaccurate: I presume you agree here since that can't possibly be disputed.

Live-in care, using relatively cheap labour (as someone describd in Germany) is all very well in some cases, but even at min wage it still works out at an awful lot if the person needs 24/7 care and supervision, as is often the case with dementia. The carer will need regular breaks and time off, and will need their sleep, so unless the person does not need attention in the night and is very 'easy' and compliant - frequently NOT the case with dementia - this will mean more than one person on shifts.

My mother only went into a care home when we knew she was no longer safe to be left alone even for half an hour. In many cases 24/7 care does mean just that - someone on hand ALL day, ALL night, 365 days a year.

Also, it's not uncommon for people with dementia to refuse to have strangers in the house, and unless they have been proved to lack capacity - often very difficult since even people with quite bad dementia can put on a good front to anyone official - there is nothing you can do. Social workers in particular are frequently known to choose to believe someone who says they do all their own shopping/cooking /cleaning/finances, even when family know they have not been remotely capable of any of these for quite a while. My mother still genuinely believed that there was nothing wrong with her - because her short term memory was non existent - when she could no longer even make herself a cup of tea.

I don't know if they can ask for any gifted money back but if you are found to be depriving aassets she will remain self funding so if the gifted money is spent there will be issues paying for the care? Best to get some good financial advice.

I was almost at the point of applying for SS funding for DF and the forms I received from my council wanted to know if there had been any significant 'gifts' out of the estate within 5 years. I was his PoA (he died last year) and am now my mother's PoA. I keep receipts for any non-nursing home payments, so for mum's clothes and any presents for DD and me (I stick to birthday and xmas, and under £30 even though DM would have spent more) I would keep the receipts and use her card to pay, so the 2 amounts correlate. I also keep an account book I manually enter costs into, as I also have to pay the bills on her house, which I am preparing to sell to pay her fees.
It would be nice to have got the money from the house as inheritance but mum needs care and I'd rather the cash went to providing her with a good standard of living and comfort and care.

I don't see why you think your inheritance is a special case over anyone else's, OP.

This is what happens to everyone who has money/an asset like a home when they need care.

Yes, it's shit, but thems the rules. You're no different to anyone else. Nobody wants all their money to go on care home fees.

I thought maybe you were referring to free prescription charges. The thing about discrimination is more about likelihood of getting treated if you have a condition rather than absolute costs of treatment being spent at any age. Things like in some areas over 65s wait more than twice as long for cataract operations than under 65s for instance, or are less likely to be prescribed treatments like cardiovascular therapies etc. Or look at age patterns in referal rates for diabetes, parkinsons, chronic kidney disiese, angiography etc, etc. There is also clear evidence of direct explicit age discrimination in social care where funding streams are organised by age...