government policy on paying for healthcare

Yes, I suspect that, as usual, the glaringly obvious flaws in the proposed policy have just been ignored in the rush to get it out!

It is an interesting idea that people might have to pay interest on the loan. When the LA puts a charge on the property it is done through the courts and has an element of compulsion. Presumably no-one can compel someone to take out a loan; so what happens if someone refuses to do that, do they have no care I wonder?

Yes, ana , absolutely.
But I would have thought that the LA will have a very hard time to prove these cases, if executed like it says above.

On another note, why would any of us want to go into a care home even?
I have seen quite a few, state and private and they all filled me with dread.
If that is what awaits us I would rather have a pill.

My mother still had to pay for her n/h she lived in bridge of earn Perth!

Yes, and one would hope that that guidance would be adhered to, but this bit:

'You should be aware that there is no limit on how far back authorities can go when considering if this is the case.'

would seem to imply that LAs have discretion to try and prove that the disposal was carried out expressly to avoid care fees.

ana
Thanks for that.
I have looked on ageuk.org.uk
When I typed deprivation of assets in searchbox, a huge fact sheet came up,with all the info anybody could want. The last update was MArch 2012.
I picked out the following:
This is a guidance to the LA. regarding the timing of the disposal of assets.

It would be unreasonable to decide that a resident had disposed of an asset in order to reduce his charge for accommodation when the disposal took place when he was fit and healthy and could not have foreseen the need for a move to residential accommodation.

I don't feel any resentment and I'm only too pleased that my mother (96) sold her house some time ago and can pay for her care now she needs it. BUT it does seem a little unreasonable to me that my mother is paying for her care and paying taxes which go towards the cost of the entirely free service received by pensioners in Scotland.

People who rent houses have nothing to show for it.
People who buy houses have made an investment and have a house to leave to their children or to sell or do with whatever they choose.

I completed paying for my house before I was 50. I have no rent or mortgage to pay for the rest of my life and I have a house to leave my children.
People who rent have to pay rent forever and nothing to leave their children

I don't resent people getting free care in their old age because they rented and have no money. I don't mind having to pay towards my care if I have to and have the means.
I would prefer we ALL got free care in old age.
I just don't understand the resentment that people feel.

Yes, johanna, you are right.

Giving away property or savings to force the authorities to pay for someone's long-term care is known in the jargon as 'deprivation of assets'. You should be aware that there is no limit on how far back authorities can go when considering if this is the case.

Read more: www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/experts/article-1645600/Giving-away-house-to-escape-care-costs.html#ixzz20s5Ik6Ao

ana
I thought the 7 years is the IHT one?

It's seven years, johanna. You have to think well ahead to avoid being charged or penalised, and be sure not to die within that period, of course!

jess
Sorry to have confused you. I threw in the IHT as a bonus.

No, you cannot sign over your home to whoever and keep residing there.
There is some law which states that you would then be a beneficiary of something you have gifted, which is not allowed.

Alisonma says:" If you are deemed to have given away your assets they can still charge you. "Which would only be the case if you were to leave it till you need to go into care. The LA does not look kindly upon people who sell their property
very shortly before they need care.
So, you would have to do it long before. Like 5 years maybe.?
I do not know exactly how many years, but I will find out.

NHS dental charges may be very cheap compared to private treatment – but they are not free – giving the lie to the government's constant mantra about the NHS free at the point of delivery.

Just one point absent I understand that more people get free prescriptions than actually pay! We have an excellent NHS dentist here and I think the charges are very cheap compared to what we had to pay for private dental treatment in Surrey.

Just for the record, the NHS is not free at the point of delivery – prescription charges, dental charges, opticians' charges for the majority of people. In some cases, when treatment should be free, it's impossible to obtain. Has anyone else ever tried to find an NHS orthodontist for a ten-year-old child? Until quite recently, hospitals could demand the state pension was handed over to them if a pensioner was an in-patient in hospital for more than six (?) weeks, though, to be fair, lots of them ignored this.

Yes, Jess they are separate issues. If you are deemed to have given away your assets to avoid care fees they can still charge you.

However, if you give away your assets and live for another 7 years there is no IHT to pay.

not quite sure if it makes sense johanna - do you mean you can sell your home, give away the money to your kids, and then buy a house they rent to you
Then if you survive 7 yrs, no inheritance tax due and the money cannot be called upon for care costs either. I have heard of people doing this kind of thing to avoid tax but not care costs.

But you can't just give them the house you live in and avoid inheritance tax and care costs?

Or are inheritance tax and care costs two completely separate issues?

According to Radio 4 this week it is a common misconception that the LA will provide a loan. Apparently it is only a few which currently do.

I don't know about the rest of Europe but DS2 lives in NL and he has just bought his second house with Dil. Her mum and sister have also bought their own houses and I think the aunts and uncles also own their own. Of course they could be in the minority but it did feel as if it was what they expected to do and there were a lot of houses for sale when we were looking with them.

Yes, but they didn't charge interest.

The idea of an LA loan to cover care costs, then to be paid out of the proceeds from the house sale when you die is not new - it just had a different name. It has long been the case that the LA can put a charge on your property whilst your care is provided and then they recoup the cost when you die.

Doesn't most of Europe prefer to rent? I know at one time the UK was unusual in preferring to purchase a property. And of course they have insurance for health care; but those living abroad would know whether I've got this right or not. Perhaps it's our mindset to 'own' that makes it more difficult for us to accept these policies.

NFKDumpling It is already possible to ask the local authority to lend the cost of care against the value of your mother's house. LAs are not madly enthusiastic about the idea but persistence usually pays off. The new system that the Government wants to bring in is for LAs still to lend the cost of care against the value of the house – but to charge interest throughout the period of the loan. Currently, it is only charged from something like 60 days after the death of the person who has taken out the loan.

I agree, Alison. There will be a shift towards renting rather than buying (even if young people could afford to buy!), because why pay a mortgage all your working life, then have to sell the house to pay for your care? What Bags says is true of an ideal society where each individual does contribute what he or she can, but there seem to be so many who expect the state to support them and don't feel any obligation to contribute anything.

Bags you refer to living in a society for which we all pay so why is the NHS free for all when paid for by all but not other forms of care? I think that all of us who object to losing everything we have worked and saved for all our lives are happy to pay our share but not to pay more than those who have partied all their lives instead of being as frugal as us.

The younger generation I used to recruit did no join the generous pension scheme because they said the state would care for them in their old age. I think they are going to be a much greater burden on the state than we will be. Most of us expected to be self sufficient all our lives and made provision so to do but many people now don't think like that, they think they are entitled to all the benefits and that the state will take care of them. I believe that the welfare state was originally intended to take care of those few who fell on hard times but now is expected to cover everything for everyone.

Thanks for reminding me about that johanna. It's certainly a better option.
My mother was 'lucky' in that she went into hospital, got sent home too soon and had to go back and sadly gave up. However it did mean that she didn't have to go through the trauma of giving up her home which was one of her biggest worries. Giving up your home is giving up so much - your freedom, your choices....It's like going back to being under someone's 'parental' care but in someone else's house.