Sale of home to fund care

Agreed Mt61.

OnwardandUpward

Yes, the disadvantage of 24 hour carers is, you need a second bedroom for the carer to use, the carer is also entitled to a 2 hour break each day. And yes you still have to run the house. I think it would be worth it for couples where one of them needs care and they want to remain together in their own home, though.

You are right of course, that the care home offers all of the above benefits.

So yes, if part of a couple I think 24 hour home care could work but if single, better to go in a carehome. Or if other partner can't cope, better to go in a carehome.

People used to really fear going in care homes, but from what I've seen they are very nice.

People are still scared of the dreaded words "care home", and rightly so.

SuzieHi

Having carers 24 hrs can cost more than a care home and the responsibility is still on the family . Every time a problem occurs they’ll contact you to deal with it. On top of carers wages you still have to run the home- heat, light, food, repairs, council tax etc
The care home looks after them 24hrs and the problems are then removed to a great extent. Also, residents get great healthcare in a home whereas at home it’s up to you to arrange. My dad’s care home has Dr on call (& visiting every week for one am), chiropodist, hairdresser, dentist & optician, & a physio(once a week) care homes also provide entertainment & nice events so residents are not lonely or bored.
The burden of home care is huge - sounds better but in my opinion isn’t - fit the reasons above.

Sounds like utopia. I have been on disability since 1992. I pay my carers with that, and it works very well.

I dread anyone interfering in my life. I had a disabled living extension built in 2001. I can manage myself at the moment, personally, but cannot do housework or garden any more. I have a Band reduction for council tax, which helps.

There are few nursing homes in UK; even fewer who could deal with my disabilities. Certainly a care home could not.

I have been disabled since age 46. I have lived in the same house, had it adapted. People see me as old, but I don't have age related disabilities. I can cope at the moment.

What I cannot cope with is the attitude locally. My house is in a very desirable position. The detached houses on this estate are being bought up by property managers and turned into two units at high rents. Mine is one of the larger ones.

The efforts of people to get me out of my home have been soul destroying to say the least. They know nothing about my disabilities. All they see is an old person and empty rooms in the care home down the road.

The houses of the elderly are sold under value. The LA can sell them for whatever they like, so long as it covers the cost of care, keep the money and dish it out as and when, and hope it lasts the life of the resident.

Property managers will just refuse to buy at a price near the value, because they know if they hang out long enough, it will sell for a song.

Explore other ways of financing care, if that is what you want. Go into a care home and see how many employees there are. If you pay for care at home, you will get at least one hour a day one-to-one. On average, that is far more than a resident in a care home gets.

Equity release can enable you to stay in your own home.

Commonground

I think I remember reading somewhere that,when a property is sold to fund care, the local authority takes all but £100k. I've tried Googling this, but all I get is info on Johnson's proposed £86,000 cap. Can someone help, please?

Follow this link - google - about care and costs.

Care and support: what's changing? - GOV.UK

God help us!

It always amazes me that the social services can send help into the home to get the client up, washed and dressed, make them a cup of tea then leave them to do their own housework, gardening, cooking, cleaning and return in the evening to put them to bed!

There is no mention of cleaning, yet that is an important issue because that is how infections start.

Thankyou

I think more people over the last 30 years would have saved for a rainy day if they could have afforded it from their minimum wage jobs.
However because of privatisation and Thatcher et al, bills like council tax that used to be a part of a council house/private rent as well as water- plus not being entitled to free or reduced dental care, rarely if ever chiropody and of course prescriptions that all take a massive chunk from a low wage even if you never drank, smoked or holidayed.

The fact that some earnings are so low that the employee pays no tax, then lately no NI is an indication of just how low our low wage economy is.
The newer requirement for a work place pension will help some but will be too little too late to free them from dependence on state benefits before or after retirements.
Makes me want to contemplate taking to 🍷 but I still prefer a cup of Yorkshire Gold 🫖

and again - www.beaconchc.co.uk

Sorry - I copied the wrong post to reply to! Should have been OnwardsandUpward's post.

Go to www.beacon chc.co.uk

HattieTopper12345

We were told by the government in the 1950's, when we started work to take out a private pension and save for a rainy day. Well we did save and take out a private pension and now I understand why we were encouraged to do so. It was so they could use pensioners savings as a private bank for themselves.

We were also told to buy diesel cars which we did and now people with diesel cars are being punished. I am waiting for the next big idea from the government which in a few years time will once again cause us financial problems.

Indeed so.

Go onto beaconchc.co.uk where there is free advice on CHC funding. There are copies of the forms that are used (check list, then application) - go through them in relation to the patient and wave them at the ward.

Be meticulous as to how their person is when at their worst.

NB - the funding is available for both care in the home and in a nursing home.

My late OH was refused twice, but I persevered to an appeal (with the advice from Beacon) and it was granted posthumously - not before I had had to sell my house though! You have to be determined, single-minded, methodical and assertive.

We were told by the government in the 1950's, when we started work to take out a private pension and save for a rainy day. Well we did save and take out a private pension and now I understand why we were encouraged to do so. It was so they could use pensioners savings as a private bank for themselves.

We were also told to buy diesel cars which we did and now people with diesel cars are being punished. I am waiting for the next big idea from the government which in a few years time will once again cause us financial problems.

Its hard to prove that there us a CHC need, even if you know there is one. I don't know how bad things have to be to get one, but I'm sure many don't get what they are entitled to because they don't even know it exists.

It wasn't covered by NHS unless there was a Continuing Health Care Need, if you can prove that it will still be covered by NHS. It was covered by the Social Services budget which was the responsibility of the Local Authority and has been successively reduced by all Governments over the years. Which is why a lot of the Care Homes that accept LA residents are the less nice ones. If you are really luck you might get one that's at least reasonable and the Carers actually care.

Yes of course, 2 certainties and "you can't take it with you", I know, I know...

But this is another way the last government let a wide section of people down. It could be argued that it doesn't affect the poor, well I don't see the problem with that. Just tax the rich What about people who are neither rich nor poor? Do they not deserve a cap?

Unfortunately the last government talked about a lot of things that they then didn't do much about, including Dangerous Dogs....

OnwardandUpward

*The government have really, really, REALLY failed families* Such a failure. They should have done the cap.

The reality is that successful families have wealth and can be taxed, unsuccessful poor families have no wealth so cannot be taxed.

There are 2 certainties in life, death and taxation, if you have wealth it will be taxed, my accountant jokes, “spend some and enjoy it”, if the children need it gift them before you die.

The government have really, really, REALLY failed families Such a failure. They should have done the cap.

OK I was wrong, I read the factsheet now. It's absolutely rubbish isn't it. Completely unfair! Substantial gifts are the only way, then.

www.independentage.org/sites/default/files/factsheets/2023-04/Factsheet-Can-I-protect-my-assets-if-I-need-care.pdf

There is no way you can give your house away to your children without consequences, be it deprivation of assets, or Inheritance Tax etc.
But you can sever a joint tenancy and become tenants in common, for another reason, and then only 50% of the value of the house is used in the financial assessment. We did this some years ago, not to avoid care costs, but so that our children from previous marriages can all benefit when we have both died. So the intention is what matters. If I need care, my half can still be used for care costs, but my husband’s half can’t. Eventually when the money is gone, there may be nothing for my children to inherit. For this reason I have already given them substantial gifts.
But as a self-funder I, or my family, will be able to choose my care home, or to buy in care at home, rather than rely on the local authority.

Thanks Casdon!

My idea is, what if a couple, say in their fifties or sixties, put their property in trust for their kid? Then in twenty years or so if they need care, they don't actually own a home and can they get their care home fees paid because they haven't recently disposed of assets?

It's an interesting POV and maybe more of us should be looking into this to keep assets in the family and help our kids to get on the property ladder? It's not fair that the government haven't put a cap there to protect hard earned wealth.

NHS will still fully fund nursing home fees, but only if you meet very strict eligibility criteria and this can subsequently be withdrawn if you are assessed on review as no longer eligible. Any contribution to care home fees is assessed via financial assessment, usually carried out via social services, unless you are funding yourself on a private basis

www.independentage.org/get-advice/health-and-care/paying-for-care/giving-away-assets-to-pay-for-care#:~:text=Deprivation%20of%20assets%20means%20you,that%20is%20out%20of%20character
Hope this helps OnwardandUpward, it doesn’t look as if there is a definitive answer, it’s up to the Local Authority to call it.

That's true, tis the care homes that take everything....

which brings me back to my previous question that no one has answered yet: ( at what age can we put a property in trust for a son or daughter before we are charged as "disposing of assets" to avoid a property being sold to pay care home fees? )

The local authority don't " take " anything. Care fees are paid out of that money, once savings gst below a certain figure, the la should start to part fund the fees, then fully fund the fees once savings are below, I think, about £14k.
Best for advice, either an independent social worker or a SOLLA accredited financial adviser.

what really annoys me is that if you have been prolific in spending everything you get care for nothing ! Where I live it is £8,000 a month ....even selling my modest home would'nt keep me in a care home for more than two years ....guess I could be euthanised after that (hope its not long before the government agreed on Dignitas !)

There is no cap, sadly. You have to keep on paying until your funds are down to about £23500.
You are expected to sell your home unless it is still occupied by your spouse and on their death the house has to be sold and care home fees deducted from proceeds.

Bearing in mind most care home fees start at around a thousand a week, it would have to be a very large home to rent out to break even...In an ideal world, a great idea but we weren't able to do this for my in laws because the home was too small to generate enough income to even pay half.