Trust wills and care home fees

Just to point out that the local authority does not have to PROVE deliberate deprivation. They have criteria to check against and they make the decision about deliberate deprivation and act accordingly. www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/paying-for-care/paying-for-a-care-home/deprivation-of-assets/

M0nica

We are not talking about what should happen, we are talking about what is happening.

Anyone who owns a house is in a priveleged position because they have an asset with a large monetary value. In the majority of cases that will mean that their children will have had access to better state schools, better further education and better careers.

People should expect to fund their own lives from their own assets, while they have any. That means that if they need to pay care fees and have access to a large capital sum that should used to pay them first before looking to government support.

Government support comes from tax payers money. I think it outrageous that tax payers on lowish incomes and with no prospect of ever owning a property and even struggling to rent should be expected to subsidise the care home fees of those more than able to pay for themselves, just so that they can leave money to their children.

How anyone can accept such money, knowing they receive it at the expense of taxpayers who cannot even afford homes. It is close to blood money.

No not in a privileged position. What a load of rubbish you are saying. I had three jobs and bought up two children on my own and bought my own house. I could have sat on my arse and rented. Incidentally I thought Boris bought in a ceiling of what we have to pay towards care so that we wouldn’t lose the whole house.

Even if you rent your home, which I do, you are still liable for charges drpending on the savings you have; so despite the fact that I have been financially careful and keen to have SOMETHING to leave my children, I will pay for any care I need - perhaps I should be helping them and my grandchildren now during these difficult times?

Incidentally I thought Boris bought in a ceiling of what we have to pay towards care so that we wouldn’t lose the whole house.
Johnson's 'once and for all' care solution put a cap on fees in the lifetime of the person needing care, which exacerbates the problem that those with valuable houses (regardless of their personal contribution to the economy) will have enough left to leave inheritance(s) for their children after it is paid, whereas those with houses in areas where their value has not risen exponentially will have little or nothing left over, again, regardless of whether they have paid taxes and at what rate.

It is, frankly, nonsense to harp on about taxpayers picking up the tab for care, whilst ignoring the fact that care fees are not linked to tax contributions but to perceived wealth.

I wonder if you all realise that Care Home fees for those that can afford them are inflated. This is in order that
Social Services have a reduced rate for those clients who cannot pay and are funded by Social Services.
A fair system? I don’t think so!

GillT57 - your comments are one of the reasons I regularly 'tune in' to Gransnet. So interesting and on occasions enlightening to see things from another point of view. I personally had never thought that trying to protect my child's inheritance would likely mean that another person's child would effectively end up paying for my (maybe) care home fees. This is causing me a rethink and I'm grateful for that.

Deprivation or intention to reduce assets has no limit of time. Some councils do though apply their own limits but basically it's not the when it's the why especially if there's was a likelihood care would be required eg dementia, long standing medical condition.
There is a short time when a recipient can be pursued, from what I remember think 6 months of receipt of asset, otherwise any amount assessed as deprivation of assets is included in an assessment and the applicant regarded as still being in possession.

What particularly angers me is that those who have mad NO provision for their possible future care are given everything whereas we who have saved, worried about paying bills and mortgages housing was so that'wealth can cascade down the generations !!....in other words, get the proles to buy their council houses and then WE WILL TAKE away their assets when they die ! simples....bet some actuary thought that one up ! I lived n France and employees have a lot deducted from their salaries (which makes them very angry !)...they deduct tax, medical insurance, and also pay a proportion of their salary for long term care ..............I paid 4,000 euros a month for my late husband .when he needed full time care ....my neighbour's mum in the same care home, paid 1,000 euros a month due to the fact money had been deducted from her salary whilst working, to pay the rest ! seems like a fair deal to me .....but again I guess if she had died before she needed care the money would have gone back to the state ! AND NOW care homes are saying they can will no longer be able to afford to stay open when the new rules come in as to the amount of money you can keep from your assets ....mind that is not going to be anytime soon ! what a shambles, as usual ...................I am off to Dignitas when I get to that stage ...£12,000 worth spending .....then any remaining moneys will be distributed as per my Will...I asked my MP to put her name to the Dignity in Dying bill ..........she refused saying it is the Government's position that assisted dying is not an option ....palliative and social care is by far the best BUT she failed to say there is NONE of either available ..............

Having just made a LPA
We were advised that local authorities have became stricter about assets being moved intentionally.They can get it overruled .

Currently my mothers care home fees are £4,000 per month. Once monies in bank been used up I then have to sell her house. I believe once there’s £22,000 left then the local authority pay the care fees. I may be totally wrong but I did hear that residents in both Scotland n Wales do not have to pay fees. Obviously if that is the case then it doesn’t really seem to be quite fair at all.

Having a house to sell to get care when older is ‘saving for a rainy day’
I agree we all pay tax but free care for the elderly is for the poor.
Are you poor? No you have a home to sell to pay for your care.
I’m not saying it’s fair, it’s the way of life.
Those who spent everything on booze, holidays, facelifts, expensive living and are now poor will still get good care whilst those who saved and have been cautious with finances, will receive care only if they pay themselves.
Totally unfair that there’s no incentive to save and be frugal.

It must be time for the "feckless poor" slant, soon.

Sorry I meant to say residents in care homes

ALANaV, re France, a dd’s friend (French but living and working here) is obliged to pay €250 a month towards her father’s residential care back home.
Which she bitterly resents, because she says he was always not only feckless but also a rubbish dad.

Until I heard this, I wasn’t aware that in France children are obliged to subsidise a parent’s care.

MissAdventure

It must be time for the "feckless poor" slant, soon.

Yeah, that's another good way to shut people up, isn't it? Imply that they are heartless and don't understand that there are those who can't save.

Surely the incentive to save is to provide for yourself, just the same as it is throughout the rest of your life?

Its akin to wanting access to food banks because other people get food from them.

It doesnt shut people up, though.
It's an alternative point of view, that's all.

MissAdventure

It doesnt shut people up, though.
It's an alternative point of view, that's all.

But it's not a point of view, it is a slur and a twisting of what people are saying.

Rather than make snide comments, why not address some of the points raised about the unfairness of a system that negatively and disproportionately affects one section of society (the working/lower middle class whose 'wealth' is in homes that have not risen massively in value)?

Doodledog
I understand your argument and I applaud you for continuing to make it in the face of rather stiff opposition. I totally agree with you. The vast majority of people who have to pay for their care are not rich. The one thing they own is their house. They have paid taxes and insurance all their lives. They have worked and paid their way all their lives. They have asked for little or nothing from the state. Their houses are usually not hugely valuable, even in the south. That’s why the whole cost of their care gets used up quite quickly in care costs. Many of our, seemingly well educated, middle class Gransnetters are anything but poor, judging purely by comments made, and sometimes pictures posted. Possibly they have already helped their children along life’s way with the many advantages that middle class children enjoy. The bank of mum and dad is well known among the middle classes. What about others, including some Gransnetters, who have been unable to do that? They want to leave their not very expensive house to their children. I find nothing wrong with that.
We do not charge people, from royalty to pauper, a single penny for schooling, NHS treatment, search and rescue (for those who get themselves into difficulty) and we do not charge a single penny to those who arrive on our shores needing help. We are a rich country that chooses to discriminate against old people at the time in their lives when they are most in need. We should be ashamed.

My comments arent snide.
They're out in the open, written down for people to see.

How exactly do you expect me to address the complexities of the system, if government, lpa, social services and the nhs continuing care system can't?

Twig14

Currently my mothers care home fees are £4,000 per month. Once monies in bank been used up I then have to sell her house. I believe once there’s £22,000 left then the local authority pay the care fees. I may be totally wrong but I did hear that residents in both Scotland n Wales do not have to pay fees. Obviously if that is the case then it doesn’t really seem to be quite fair at all.

They are autonomous countries Twig14. If you live in England the English government you voted for (or didn't) decide. If you live in either of the other countries, the governments their population voted for (or didn't) decide. The only thing we can affect is how the English government funds Care.

Those figures are eyewatering when they become a reality, aren't they. I have just checked and your mum will sadly not benefit from the new Social Care arrangements. They don't come in until 2023 and then only for new cases.

Thanks, maddyone.

It's so wearisome when people ascribe views that I don't hold. I don't want to see anyone do without care, or consider those who have no money 'feckless'. I just believe that people should be able to have autonomy over their own money, and that taxing it at source would be much fairer than taking it from some and not others when care is needed.

Demographic data is not a political view, it is a fact. Fewer people paying in + more people taking out does not work, mathematically.

If I hadn’t managed to get her nursing home fees paid by the nhs , I had been going to buy an annuity for my MIL’s card home fees.
You basically get quotes from insurance brokers for a price to cover the entirety of the frees for as long as the person lives. I was quoted £4Ok . Obviously if the person died a week later you’d have lost a lot of money but if they live a lot longer you’d save money.

Chocolatelovinggran

Demographic data is not a political view, it is a fact. Fewer people paying in + more people taking out does not work, mathematically.

So why not link fee remission to paying tax? If you have paid in for a pre-determined number of years, you get 'free' care, and if not, the costs are taken from the sale of your house or other assets?

I'm not saying that would be the optimum system (tax at source would be better), but if people were genuinely concerned about the tax figures surely that would be an option on the table?