Care Home Fees

It is not the state's duty to inquire how you run or finance your private life. It is there to make rules that all of us obey. If it states that a charge is laid against the half of a house somebody owns , that is that. It does not make any judgement on whether the house has been maintained by somebody other than the person going into care, nor does it penalise someone who lets their house fall into rack and ruin in order to enjoy the finer things in life so that the value of the house, and the contribution it can make towards care costs decreases drastically.

FlicketyB

Houses do not have to be owned in equal shares.
In my situation what I could have done is gradually buy more and more of Dads share and given him the money to spend on things like his private health insurance and other things.
Eventually it may have got to a point where Dad would only own say 2% of the house so there would be very little for the council to take but Dad would still have the right to stay in the house.
Another way would be for me to lend Dad the money and to take a charge over his share of the house.
In summary the son / daughter would be giving the parent equity release instead of an equity release company and would have a right to the house.
Obviously we can not have a situation where the offspring's money is taken for the parents care.

Frank

Another point

Social Services do ask about money has been spent.
I did hear of a case where a mother was living in a daughters property and they asked why about £2,500 had been spent about 6 months before she went in to care.
It was for an orthopaedic bed for the mother which was useless for the daughter.
The council did ask the daughter to pay the money on the basis that the bed was in her house.
The daughter offered the bed to the council as long as it supplied an equivalent bed to the one which was disposed of to make way for the orthopaedic bed.
Obviously the daughter did not anticipate the mother going in to care at the time the bed was purchased and in any case could not be held liable as the mother was entitled to spend her own money at that point.
The council was just trying it on.

Another way care costs could be recovered is to take a charge over a house a son or daughter owns separately and when they die the house could be sold to recover the parents care fees and all the savings could be taken.
If there are still insufficient funds the debt should be passed on to the grandchildren and deductions made from their salary / pension till the debt is cleared and taken from the proceeds of the sale of any house they own when they die.
Again if the debt is not cleared it could be passed on to the great grand children and recovered in the same way.

Gerry

A sort of snowball of generational debt....

Ana

Yes and that would be fair.

Gerry

No it wouldn't.

A person should be responsible for their own debt.When they die their estate pays the debt.A lien can be place on property jointly owned and if sued may force the sale.Family members sell parents home to pay for nursing home here because Medicare only helps when there is no money or hardly any is left.

This could be a two way conversation, methinks...

Gerry

Your proposals would not work.
You could get a situation where 4 or 5 generations could have to go in to care and a child could in effect be bankrupt before he / she is born.
If that child knows all of his assets is going to be taken by the government he / she is not going to bother to work and will not buy a house or try to save.
Are you also saying if a father goes bankrupt with other debts the child will have all their assets taken as well?.

Frank

Enviousamerican

In the UK a house can not be sold or charged when a husband / wife is living in it.
It is possible to split the ownership of the house in half ( tenants in common ) and one parent can leave their half to the offspring.
This means if 1 parent goes in to care at worst only half the house can be taken for care fees.
If the child is living in the property none of the house can be taken for care as the child has the right to occupy the property for the rest of his / her life. Obviously as nobody will buy half a house with somebody in it the parents share is worthless.

Frank

thanks Frank,I need to see if that is possible here.I need to update my will anyway.

With regard to recovering care fees from the grandchildren or great grandchildren what I think should happen is £50 per week should be deducted from their salary / wages to go towards the care fees debt and all savings / property should be taken when they die including the property of the spouse.

Gerry

Sooo, Gerry, lets get this right. (A) goes into care, costs more than he has so the debt passes to his son (B). (B) having just retired,continues to pay for (A) has a stroke and needs care which quickly uses up all his funds so his son (C) takes on the rising debts, along with trying to save for his own retirement, pay his mortgage and repay the loan he took out to subsidise his son (D) through university. (D) is looking to a future of paying off his university loan, mortgage, pension fund, care home fees, cannot afford to ever have a family.

Gerry has also said the property of any spouse should be taken.
Would anybody want to marry a person with so much debt?.

Frank

Well, it would certainly test a person's love.

And another thing.
D might leave the UK and they may get nothing off him anyway.

Frank

well I would if I were him!

Thinking about it they could refuse to issue B, C and D a passport before all care fees are paid.
The only problem is they might not be able to get their top paid job without a passport.
Where I worked it was a condition of the job that you had to have a passport above a certain grade.
I was obliged to have a passport even though I only went abroad twice on business in my working life and that was as a result of somebody going ill.

Frank

OH,how unfair that would be! like I said a person should be responsible only for their own debt. If they are dead and their is no money left,too bad care home! They are for profit businesses and you know they charge more money than is needed to take care of people or they would go out of business.Of course I don't know exactly how it works in your country when the money runs out.

Enviousamerican

In the UK if it is mainly a medical need the NHS has to fund care but if it is something like disability the individual has to fund the care until the assets are used up.
The council then has to pay but it can take the persons pension towards the fees.
There are all sorts of exemptions which are not clearly defined. If there is a relative over 60 living in the property it can not be taken towards the care fees.
Also if a joint owner is living in the property it can not be taken towards the care fees or if a spouse is in it.
If a carer is in it the council has discretion not to take the property.
If a son / daughter is living in the property and they have no title to it the council could take the property if they are under 60 but they can not if they have inherited some of it from a deceased parent.
Arguments do happen however.
I know of a case where a mother passed away and the father had to be taken in to care a month later and the son was living in the property.
The mothers share was willed to him but probate had not been obtained.
Social Services did try to argue he had no title to the property at that point but they did not win their case.
Another argument happened after a child moved in with the father as a joint owner 3 years before he went in to care.
Social Services tried to argue deprivation of assets had happened as they thought it was on the cards the father would have to go in to care but again Social Services did not win partly on the time scale and by virtue of the fact the child had been a carer.

Frank

Frank,,Deprivation of assets.Is that kind of like hiding assets? So if someone waited to long to will there assets to family it could be seen as knowing a care home might be needed soon and property was trying to be save? I hope that makes sense.

Enviousamerican

You are right. It is really putting the assets beyond the reach of the council to avoid care fees.
Another thing which could happen is a person may repay a loan so the guarantor who may be a relative wont be called to pay the debt.
Son's / daughters moving in to jointly owned property causes most of the arguments however,
If a son / daughter occupies a property as a joint owner with the parent generally it can not be used for care fees but if they live elsewhere half could be taken.
If the son / daughter has only been there a short time the council may argue the offspring moved in to put half the house beyond the reach of the council.
Unfortunately things could happen like the parent may have been in good health at the time the child moved in and has suddenly gone down hill or the child moved in thinking he could care for the parent so it could be argued the child moved in with good intent but the council may argue the child moved in to put the house beyond the councils reach.
Also a short time is a moot point. How do you define it?. 6 months, 3 years? 5 years? 10 years.
Opinions could vary.

Frank

Frank,thats something we all should think about. I often think I should sign my house over to my only child a son. But what if something financially bad happened to him? You never know what can happen,especially over here where bankruptcy caused by medically care is number one.

Enviousamerican

You must get the advice of a solicitor in your own country.
If you signed your house over to your son to avoid care fees in the UK that could be classed as deprivation of assets regardless of how long ago.
Also it is remote but I worked with somebody who is now in care. I don't know the full details except he is in his mid 50's.
The father is still alive and living in his own home.

Frank