Carehome taking all the money

[Pugsrus]

At the minute we are using her personal money to pay the care home fees ,yet other residents are getting it for free .
It seems very unfair we now have to sell the house,so we will be paying Well over £250,000 in care home fees ..how is this fair .she saved for years to pass the money on to her grandchildren.
Is there anything we can do

@SuzetteCrepe

Self funders where I live dont always get the home they choose until a vacancy comes up.

I'm not even talking about choice of residential home, that always depends on availability. I'm talking about having the choice to go in any residential home. Self funders have that choice, those without funds are beholden to an LA assessment of needs, and the bar is very high indeed.

If she is in a home that has both self-funders and funded residents then she will not just be spending her own money but also subsidising the funded residents (round here in the expensive South East anway).

You could look for a home that only takes self funders - in my experience both the care and the standard of living will be better - but the risk is that if she runs out of money she will need to move somewhere else to live.

If you really are thinking about the money, fyi the average life expectancy of care home residents is something like 30 months.

autopilotpeach at least 7 years, and only then if there is no evidence the person will have care needs in the medium term (next 7 years ish). But deliberate deprivation of assets doesn't have a set time frame and if there is evidence that it is the only reason it has been done, the LA can still go after the money.

Obviously, second home ownership can have ramifications for the new owner - on mortgage applications, insurances etc. So it isn't a simple decision. You'd be a landlord and legally would have to confirm to the laws for landlords. Even if you 'tenant' is family and not paying rent.

When FiL had a massive stroke he moved into our back room. We had carers coming in four times a day, paid for by his capital until it dropped below a certain point when it was free. He wasn’t required to sell his house to fund it.

He was with us for six months or so until he died and we had some tough times but some absolutely amazing times.

The hospital discharge, social workers and district nurses were an absolute shambles.

The poorly paid care staff were incredibly professional and knowledgable and the GPs from our local practice, who I’d previously only seen as shifting you out of their office ASAP, were absolutely amazing and went beyond the call of duty several times.

It was very hard and I think any longer would have broken us, but it has absolutely made us all stronger as a family.

It's funny how so many people think that other people should pay their way, but they should get something for nothing in the form of an inheritance.

Many people will be motivated to work to provide a legacy for their children. If they become wealthy they also become good tax payers...

There should be at least one registered nurse on about 12 pounds per hour and 3 lower paid care assistants on about 8 pounds per hour to every 24 or so residents.

And then some. Adult Minimum Wage is £8.72, then you need to add the on-costs such as employers' National Insurance and pension contributions.

It seems very unfair we now have to sell the house,so we will be paying Well over £250,000 in care home fees ..how is this fair .she saved for years to pass the money on to her grandchildren.

You're right - it is unfair that she has the money to choose, or have her relations choose on her behalf, a care home for her.

It is unfair that her relations do not have to provide care themselves because the available packages don't meet her needs in the way that they would want, or they have to wait for thresholds of need to be met, whilst others have to do just that.

Maybe the answer is to tax the house-sale so the Local Authority gets something towards funding better care for everyone (many of whom will have contributed significantly to society in poorly-paid jobs or had challenging personal circumstances that meant they couldn't work) and so leaves less for over-entitled relatives?

Instead of thinking of it as your money, think of it as what it is: HER money saved for HER later needs (many people of that generation refer to it being for “a rainy day“).

I truly hope that your DGM is not aware of your attitude.

So those paying subsidise those that don’t- isn’t that the same as higher tax payers, private nursery fees? isn’t that just life? Isn’t that what makes us a civilised society?

Newschapter (I don't know how to tag) but my understanding is that a top up should only be paid if the local.authority presents a choice of homes (one at a base rate) and the one you pick is more exoensive- hence the top up between the base rate option and the preferred option. There is an ombudsman case for Lincolnshire that explains it. Just wanted you to be aware- hopefully you already know this.

HogDogKetchup they work to pay their way, not to give their adult children a free ride. Also it's better for the economy that the money they have tied up in the house is spent on employing all those people working in the care home than given to their freeloading relatives to sit on, or enable them not to work, or push up house prices with, while the tax payer pays for their care. The person who has earnt the money gets the use of it in paying their way. The OP wants something for nothing (in fact two somethings - she wants her relative's money either for herself or her kids, neither of whom have worked for that money, and someone else - the tax payer - to pay for her relative's care so she doesn't miss out on money for nothing).

I’m always intrigued to know why people think the government would pay large to exacerbate economic and social inequality.

That’s what you’re really saying. The state should pay for care for all to protect inheritances that will give a financial foot up for a much smaller number.

If we want people to routinely live into their 80's, 90's and beyond then someone has to pay. I don't see why I should when your relative has assets of hundreds of thousands of pounds.
She could have downsized/spent her money too, enjoyed it over the years and got her care for 'free'.
She chose not to. These are not new rules. We all have choices.

The only options are you care for her yourself or if she's eligible she gets continuing health care (needs to have quite high health needs - not social care need) you can do a checklist on line).

I don't think the problem is people receiving free care, more the huge disparity between free and self funding of £70000.00 a year approximately that is a huge amount of money.

I think many of us hope we can pass some inheritance to our children just to help with the huge cost of housing. Aspirations to own you own home are becoming unachievable for a larger number of people.

I think when you've spent years and years paying of a mortgage to see it disappear on care costs in a very short time is disappointing.

Most of us are not used to spending such large sums per year.

@itisthecause I know I’m shocked at the amount of posters just dismissing that in our generation today (younger ones). It would have taken them years and working till around 70. Then possibly will have to sell their houses. I think some people here will eat humble pie when it’s their turn.

The younger generation will absolutely too have to pay their way and sell their houses. Plus have to work longer, have less generous pensions and probably less non means tested benefits in years to come.
As they should.
If we know the disparity between self funded and other residents is huge, then we can choose not to save but to spend and enjoy our lifetime efforts and have 'free' care. Or gamble on not requiring a care home and save it all to pass on. The gamble and choice is ours.
It's not fair in an overloaded system to expect to hang on to often unearned wealth in the hundreds of thousands and expect others to pay even more.

So those paying subsidise those that don’t

To the many people who think this is what happens...it isn't!

Example:

Care fee is £1000 per week.

Person A has a house worth £250k ,pension, savings etc. They pay £1000 per week out of their assets.

Person B has no house ,savings under £23k. The LA assess them and will pay a percentage of the care fee.

In my area this is approx £500.

Person B will then have to make up the other £500 from their savings, pension, family help.

Person A is not subsidising Person B. The LA/Social care are contributing up to 50% of the cost for Person B.

correction: They pay £1000 per week out of their income/assets.

NotYourDawg
Where does that info come from? Unless things have changed in the last 5 years:
Cost of care is around 7 to 800 per month.
Self funders pay £1000.
Non self funders are funded by LA up to £500.
This was explained to me by the managers of 5 different care homes where relatives were all self funding.
The nursing care chunk is around £100 a month.
It is virtually impossible to get any more than that IME.

I think there are some confusing messages on this thread. I wanted to offer some clarity- hope this helps.

If you are a 'self funder' you pay the rate you agree with the care home. Sometimes if you do not have savings but have a home you can enter an agreement with a Local Authority where they will fund the care home until the home is sold- they will then claim back the money and the person will then self fund their placement ongoing. In these scenarios some care homes will increase cost when the person becomes a self funder as the contract moves the LA and care home to self funder and care home.

If you do not have a home or savings above the threshold £23k then you will be supported by the LA. You will be assessed under the Care Cat 2014 to consider eligible needs and how best to meet them. If a placement is deemed necessary the LA should give a choice of homes if more than one vacancy is available. The LA will normally pick the one they prefer... if the person/family choose a different home that is more expensive the family are often asked to pay the difference between the LA care home choice and the preferred choice. This could be minimal or substantial. The person with care needs will be assessed for their contribution. They are normally left with £30 approx per week. If a person is in a care home the home will also receive FNC from the CCG for the nursing element. This changes yearly but I believe it is around £170 per week at the moment.

If a person has needs that are deemed beyond a social care level- so if needs are primarily health related the care home or a sw can complete something called a CHC checklist. If the person is 'postiive' they will have a full assessment of their needs by a CHC nurse assessor. If they qualify then any placement will be fully funded by the CCG and the difference to the person is that they are NOT asked for a contribution. This is very hard to qualify for. A SW from the LA (regardless of funding status) should be included in making the overall decision. The decision can be appealed.

I fully appreciate that this can all seem unfair and so so so confusing. I hope some of the above helps. I am no expert though.

This is a really good point
"If you don’t want HER to spend HER money on HER care do it yourself"

Many think the should swan along and do nothing, let the taxpayer foot the bill and then walk off with the money...for doingabsolutely bugger all - no care - no nothing - just let some minimum wage person slog and taxpayers pay.... umm - no!

www.nhs.uk/conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/money-work-and-benefits/nhs-funded-nursing-care/

www.nhs.uk/conditions/social-care-and-support-guide/money-work-and-benefits/paying-for-your-own-care-self-funding/

I think its very unfair. But I thought the law was changing and a cap was being put on care home fees payable. There was certainly talk of it.

So you want me to pay for her care (and by me I mean all tax payers) so that her grandchildren get her money? Your argument is that she worked for her money so should get to keep it in the family. But you're happy for me and my husband (as two people with no chance of any inheritance) to both work full time, while just getting by, renting a house, with no real prospects of having any major savings in the future, to pay for her care instead? Is that what you're asking for?

Viviennemary yes, £70k it was in the Care Act 2014 but that part of the act has never been implemented. The other thing with the cap was that it was specifically for 'care' costs. So if someone is in a care home, costs for your room, food, share of the gas, electricity water, TV licence, laundry, entertainment are all deducted and only the care (support with washing, dressing, eating, mobilising etc) would count - a very small portion of the weekly fee.