How can I be expected to pay £ 1,000 per month top up for my father.

Well, I have already posted a message earlier in this discussion giving my opinion of Social Workers and the depths they will plumb to avoid paying out money even if they are legally required to and I am sure many people have paid out money and financially embarrassed themselves paying for the care of elderly relatives

About five years ago I and a cousin were dealing with an aunt and uncle's welfare when they were both diagnosed with dementia. I was a Home Visitor with Age Concern (as it was then), my cousin was a hospital consultant. We both knew the ropes and were not easily intimidated but even then Social Services rang rings round us and we both said that if we, who were in a better position than almost anyone else, to know what Social Services and the hospitals legal obligations were, were unable to make them fulfill their obligations what hope did anyone else have.

Hi FlicketyB

The council did not want to pay anything in my father's case. They wanted me to sell the house my father and myself were living in.
I was going to go for full NHS funding but after asking 3 times the Social Worker admitted that Dad could have qualified for Social Funding.
She then said I would have to pay a top up of £100 per week as the homes which took residents at the local authority usual rates were full and had a long waiting list.
Again my solicitor advised me the offer had to be a genuine one with a place available.
I was going to go back and say the council would have to find a home at their usual rate which was available or pay the extra but I then had a phone call from the hospital to say Dad had passed away.
Really what was annoying was if somebody had taken the word of the Social Worker they may have sold their home and either the relative may have only lasted a few days in care or been like my father and passed away without even getting to the care home.
Really I think social workers just try to con people.
I have visited a person who I worked with about once every 2 weeks over the last 6 months and there has hardly ever been a visit when I have not heard one of the residents has passed away so places are all ways becoming available.

I do not think the law is there to stop an older person leading an extravagent life to dispose of their assets before they need care but to stop people transferring very large sums or assets like their house, shares, or other savings to their children for example to avoid paying for care. Personally considering how small the amount Social Services will pay homes for care means that anyone depending on state funded care is going to be in the cheapest, nastiest and most inadequate homes that I would rather conserve my funds and be able to pay for a good quality home where I would be well looked after. I have experience of homes at both ends of the spectrum so my decision is based on experience.

An elderly lady I knew who took out a large mortgage to bail her son's business out was refused pension credit, which in theory she was entitled to because her income was so small after making the mortgage repayment simply on the grounds that she was not the beneficiary of the mortgage. If it had been taken out to do necessary improvements or maintenance of her home that would have been acceptable but as it was taken out to be given to her son it was disallowed and she had to struggle to live on a very small income.

I can only agree with Bone42 that it can be difficult to predict that your parent will have to go into care.
Care was proposed for my father.
The social worker told me to downsize the house to release funds for my fathers care.
I saw a solicitor and it was confirmed I did not have to downsize.
The social worker was not pleased as Dad only had about £14,000 plus some life assurance policies which we were not obliged to cash in and half of a £500,000 house.
Sadly however Dad passed away before care was arranged.

Hi FlickertyB

Checking investmant history could be very difficult as there are many financial institutions.
Also say if somebody goes and spends his money on expensive holidays suspecting he will have to go into care soon who are you going to make responsible?.
I did hear of a case where somebody was living with his son and was drawing £400 out of his bank account every week in cash and the son did not know what had happened to it as he was at work during the day.
If for example the father was going out for an expensive lunch every day what could the son have done about it?.
Also proving if the person should have suspected he was going to have to go into a home could be difficult. Up to that point they are free to send their money as they wish.
My father spent £1,300 on a new bed a week before he went into hospital which led to him going into care.
I had taken him to the hospital the day before and did not stop him as I was told he only had a water infection and that was affecting his behaviour.
His bed was nearing the end of its life.
I knew what money my father had as he was living with me. Some of the children may not know what money their mother or father has and will only find out by searching their home and this does not give a 100% guarantee.

Someone with a financial advisor as a relative may get round the rules but this is only because Social Services etc do not check up in detail on investment history but the law states that if you dispose of your assets with the intention of avoiding paying for care then Social Services will calculate what you pay towards your care on the basis that you still have that money.

Many people arrive in retirement without savings or investments, not because they were wasteful or profligate or led extravagent lives but simply because they were in low paid occupations or had difficulties in their lives that meant any savings had been depleted before they reached retirement age.

The problem with the government scheme is that they would set a maximum level of care home fees that would be taken into account in calculating the £35,000 and that would soon fall to the ludicrous levels paid by Social Services so you could be paying £800pw for a decent home for an elderly relative but the government would only take £450 a week of that into account in calculating when the £35,000 limit was reached and then would only pay £450 a week for further care so you would still be stuck with paying £350 a week towards care costs.

Hi petallus

What do you define as wealthy?.
There are people getting 40k pensions plus a state pension living in reasonably expensive houses.
There is a lot of difference between them and say a pensioner with an income of say £500,000 per year.
What would you do if say a husband passed away and left most of his wealth to his children.
A man may have £5,000,000 for example and may only leave his wife say a house worth £300,000 plus say £100,000 in cash investments. That may be regarded as ok if she was 80+ for example.
Also you could get a lady marry somebody who is a multi millionaire late in life and there may be a pre nuctual agreement saying she is not entitled to any of the wealth.
She may be living a lavish life style but could the husband be held liable for her care fees?.
I think if care fees were restricted to 35k people would be more likely to pay up but if the liability is unlimited people will use every loophole to make their assetts local authority proof.

Nanadogsbody

The term you were looking for was tennants in common.
As you may know if the offspring goes to live with the parent and half the property is in the name of the offspring the council can not take any of the house even if the offspring had a valuable property in the past.
This is a very contraversial subject but if say the offspring has been back living with the parent for say 10 years it is likely the offspring would have spent a lot of money on the house and the parent and it would be unfair for any of the house to be taken for any of the parents care.

Janeainsworth I think the system would be unfair in a number of ways.

Some people who could well afford to pay a lot more than £35k would be benefitting at the expense of the tax payer in a similar way to the wealthy being given free bus passes, winter fuel allowance and so on.

And what if one doesn't need care. Would the £35 still be payable?

As for those who do not work, yes there are people who are just lazy but many others are unable to do so through no fault of their own and in my opinion it is a mark of a civilised society that it looks after it's poor and needy even if they haven't 'paid in'.

Hi Jane

I was bought up in a council house and my parents did not have much money but I married a man with a reasonable amount of money and I got a reasonably good job.
Sadly my husband passed away when he was 55.
At the time my father went into the home he did not have £35k but he does now have that amount because he has been NHS funded in the home for over 6 years and he is allowed to keep all of his pensions.
I do not think I am responsible for payment for his care.
I am not pleading poverty but I am not a multi millionaire but I would have been poor if I had done what the social worker requested.
I do accept my fathers case is an extreme but it is not much consulation if you happen to be the son / daughter of a parent whose care needs go to the extreme if you are held liable to pay for them.

LaGrande I am not so sure.
Firstly, it wouldn't be everyone contributing £35K would it? It would only be those who had worked and saved their money, and they would be subsidising those who hadn't. To those who say we should support the less well off etc., I already do, through taxation.
Secondly I would not trust the state to provide even adequate care.
I do not object to paying for my own (social) care and expect to do so if I need it (nursing care is different and should be paid for by the NHS) but I would prefer to have some choice in the matter.

I so wish the Gov had followed through the 'everyone contributes 35,000 and then all care is provided in old age' it seemed so sensible and not an extortionate amount imo and at least gave an idea to younger people what they needed to aim for.

Instead we have this carry on. An in-law is a financial advisor and moved all his mother's savings (about 30,000 I think) into an offshore account !!! To ensure the state will have to pay. So far no one seems to have chased up proof of her now minimal savings and she is getting funding for carers a few times a week.

Now everyone is wise to how the state will grab their savings when they go into a home many more people will hide their money to ensure it is there to go to their offspring on their demise. So the gov will get less money over time not more as those needing funding increase in number.

bone42 I think it's very commendable that you looked after your father for all that time. Believe me I do know what a sacrifice it is. My remarks were not aimed at people like yourself who have done what they can. Rather I am asking the question of those who do absolutely nothing or the bare minimum and yet expect rich pickings.

I am expecting a lot of flack after my posting, but wonder if some people see my point ?

Hi Nanadogsbody

I will not inherit a lot but in my case I did care for my father for 7 years but it just got to the point where he went beyond what 1 person could do at the time.
If there had been a house to inherit I would have expected the fact I had cared for Dad for 7 years to be taken into account.
I know that an extreme has happened with my father in the fact he has lived for another 6 years.
In my case if it had not been for my father I would have been able to have got another job so I have lost 5 years of my working life.
On top of that social services wanted me to pay for my fathers care and if I had I would now be homeless and posibly bankcrupt.
I have saved the taxpayer money and got no thanks.

If a property is held in joint names, as is usual with married couples, when one dies that property automatically goes to the other. One partner cannot in law 'will' the property to another third party. However you can have a solicitor separate the property into two names ( forget the legal term) and then you can will it as you will (forgive the pun). This has not yet, according to my own solicitor been tested in law yet.

If any person over 60 is still living there as their primary residence then the house cannot be sold to defray care costs.

But that's not my point. Why should the state have to pick up the cost of paying for my care when/if I need to go into a home in the future? If my children want my assets, including my house, then they need to do their bit by looking after me when I need support. This happens in many cultures, but increasingly less in ours. Children want to inherit their parents money, but don't want the burden of looking after the in their old age. Instead they expect the state to pick up the tab and then to sit back and inherit. Cake and eat it????

This thread is very interesting and I've made a few notes.

Not for me because my parents have both died without needing care.

However, I intend to make sure my children know about these things just in case DH or I have to go into care at some time in the future.

I was widowed at age 55 and had redundancy / early retirement that year.
My mother passed away just before I was 56 and my father became physically disabled and I cared for him until I was 63.
Suddenly my father got dementia and I could not cope and he had to go into care.
First the assessor said I should pay as I had a bungalow and she knew they were reasonably expensive ( about £400,000 ).
I said it was my bungalow and none of it belonged to Dad.
She then tried to say that Dad only had a few months to live and his care would not come to a large amount.
I just said I was not paying and I left and found out about NHS Continuing Care.
The manager came on later and still wanted me to pay but I just said I was not paying.
After a couple more calls I went to my solicitor and he sent a letter and as a result NHS funding was agreed.
A year later Dad was still alive and he was re assessed and the person tried to palm him off with social funding but changed his mind when I said I would involve a solicitor.
Two years later the same happened.
The person who assessed him on the third year said this was clearly an NHS funding case.
On the fourth fifth and sixth assessment social funding was tried but changed to NHS funding when I said I would take legal action.
A seventh year assessment was done by the same person who did Dad's first assessment and I reminded her that she told me over 6 years before Dad only had a few months to live and NHS funding was agreed for another year.
She did say this was a very extreme case and it has cost the NHS a lot of money.
If I has not pressed for NHS funding for Dad my retirement would have been totally ruined by now.
When I visited Dad this morning he was well alive and I am nearly 70 and he went into care nearly 6 and a half years ago.
I feel I deserve some holidays etc when Dad does pass away.
How long have I got to live?.

Jane

I agree sandra5 that as a rule someone's wealth shouldn't come into whether their parent pays for their own care or not.

But in the case I mentioned the parent, who owned the whole of her own house (worth £250,000) and has a substantial pension, would normally be expected to use some of her assets to pay for her own care.

However, her daughter, who is very well off already, is pulling every string she can to avoid her mother doing this so she can inherit the house and keep on living off the mother's pension.

Yes - there is a difference between NHS continuing health care and NHS funded nursing care. In the latter case the costs are split with only the nursing care being funded by the local PCT. Sorry I misunderstood you sandra. Obviously your dad's need is for continuing health care.

Hi FlicketyB

The Social worker did try to blackmail me.
About 20 homes looked at my father and none would take him.
The social worker did come to me and say there was a home which would take him at a cost of £1,200 per week but the NHS would not pay that amount.
She said he could go there if I paid. She also said things like Dad was dangerous and if he was let out he could attack a child and I would be responsible.
I just refused to pay and Dad was in hospital for about another 3 weeks.
After that time he was transferred to that home and the NHS had no alternative but to pay up.
The social worker saying my father could attack a child did not bother me.
I knew my father could not be let out in that state and if they had been stupid enough to let him out I could have not been held liable for his actions.

Hi annodomini

Look at NHS Continuing Healthcare.

If a person's prime needs are health related the NHS is liable for all of the bill regardless of means.

Hi petallus

The fact that the son or daughter owns an £800,000 house does not come into the situation. The house belongs to the son / daughter.
I presume the mother is widowed. Are you sure she owns a £250,000 house.
The father may have left his half to the offspring and he / she may be registered as a half owner.
Looking at Age Concern factsheet 38 it appears the mother's share is worthless as the house can not be sold without the consent of the son / daughter.
I was speaking to a widowed man who's father was in the nursing home with dementia.
The man said he owned a 6 bedroom house worth again about £800,000 paid for by himself and his late wife.
While his mother and father was alive they lived in a rented house.
When his mother passed away he accomodated his father in his house.
The social worker did try to say that 1 person on his own does not need a 6 bedroom house and told him he could downsize and use the money to pay for the father's care.
This case was worse than mine because the house had been paid for by himself and his late wife and in no way belonged to the father.

Hi Nanadogsbody

I think you are refering to my case.
The house was worth about £600,000 but Dad only owned half of it as my mother had willed her half to me.
As I was in residence because I had the right to live in it if you look at Age Concern factsheet 38 my Dad's half is worthless as nobody will buy half a house with me living in it for potentially 40 years.
In any case my father's needs were health related.
He had attacked 2 nurses at the hospital due to his dementia and he had a lot of strength so the NHS had to pay.
The Social Worker wanted me to give up all of the house.
What nobody wanted to take into account half of it was mine, I had spent about £80,000 on repairs / improvements to the house while I was with Dad and I had been paying things like private medical insurance and for holidays for Dad so his interest in the house was nothing like £600,000.

The NHS rightly has to pay for nursing care. Personal care is paid for through Social Services but they can and do require the client to pay with his/her own resources, including proceeds from the sale of the house.

Someone I know owns a £800,000 house and has an opulent lifestyle, and her mother owns a £250,000 house. This person has had use of her mother's pension for some years and stands to inherit mother's house. Mother is in care now and every effort is being made to get all fees paid for by NHS so that mother's money (house and pension) stays in the family.

Not sure what I think about wealthy (ish) people being supported out of taxes which are sorely needed for other things at the moment.

Maybe the guidelines need simplifying so we have a fairer system which is not so open to interpretation. At the moment determined people are more likely to avoid paying.