Message Forums

Quote: Originally posted by Patches on 08/9/2012

---

I take the point you are trying to make here Bill but what I was trying to say (and I think others) is that the current system is grossly unfair on those who have been prudent and saved for their old age and/or struggled to buy a property.  (Not all of us bought property when it was dirt cheap and watched it grow in value out of all proportion). 

We are all ultimately responsible for providing for our own needs, and those of our families, but I would like to be able to give the benefit of this hard work to my children..i.e. our house....so that hopefully they may be able to pay off their student debt when I'm dead.

As it stands if I need some kind of care in my old age, my home will have to be sold to pay for this until just a fraction of the sale proceeds remain.   If I didn't own a house, the state would have to provide.  How can this be fair?

I think Gram summed it up for me.   The current system is unjust and penalises the prudent.

---

It isn't as simplistic as this. The state will pay a certain amount for our care. Never believe that Local Authorities (who pay) have a bottomless pot of money to cover everything. Now, when we need care what kind of standard would we hope for? This is the rub. If you have over £23250 then you pay for your care and you are free to take it where and how you want. If the state pays you get what the state can afford, and that does tend to be in the homes which charge the lower fees. What do you get for lower fees? Lower wages for the carers, insufficient training, carers visiting your home using their own transport which they have to pay for out of their own wages and only get paid by the number of visits they can make so, perhaps skimp on care in order to get to the next client.

Ask anyone who has care for their parent paid for by the state. Are they happy with the way Mum is looked after?

So, yes you can save and give yourself better options. That is the incentive, rather then saying that folk are icentivised not to save for their care because the state will pick up the tab. MIL had dementia and needed care at home as DIL couldn't cope. We lived 90 miles away. carers turn up after 9 in the morning for the purpose of getting MIL up and dressed ready for the day. MIL gets up at 7 and by 9 DIL had got her washed and dressed. Well dressed as best he could.So, when the carers arrived tick the box to record that she was washed and dressed but didn't mention that they hadn't done it. That was why, after MIL passed away and DIL went "yonderly" we bought him over here for us to look after him as I was retired by then.

Janus will have exactly what standard of care he wants, other will have what  they are given. That is the choice.

When in practice I often had clients who wanted to set up property deals to avoid paying for care and I gave them all the advice I have provided in this thread. How to do it, timing (at least more than 12 months and a day from the day care is required)etc etc. Hpwever, I also made sure that they had a look at the range of care facilities in the area so that they understood just what state funded care meant compared to privately funded care before they took that final decision.

Like I say it isn't that simple and Local Authorities will never be able to hike up the Council Tax bills to cover what most every body would look on as a decent standard of care.

My Mum wants to transfer her bungalow (worth around a third of a million) on to me and my three sisters while she remains as tenant to avoid care fees. Doubt she will ver need care but she is 89 so you never know. I have argued against it because if she needs it that one third of a million can buy pretty decent care for her remaining years. We all have choices - make them informed ones.

Phil 

I take your point Phil that the local authority, if footing the whole bill, will only provide the bare minimum of care.   

In my own case, hubby's grandma needed to go into a nursing home (she was almost 90 at the time).  She lived in rented property but had savings, so the local authority paid for the majority of the cost and the family paid a "top up" to the home.  This was paid by using her savings but if she had lived longer and the savings had been used up, the family would have had to find the cash to keep her there.  I felt this was fair as it meant we were able to "shop around" for the kind of care she needed and found her a lovely home with caring, hardworking staff, who looked after her very well until the end of her days.This was only possible because the family were in a position to pay the "top up".  You get what you pay for, with care as with everything else.

If she had owned her own house, am I right in thinking that she would have had to have sold it and paid the whole of the costs of the nursing home, with no contribution from the local authority?  If so, then this is where I think the unfairness comes in.

the family paid a "top up" to the home. This was paid by using her savings

Actually Patches if it was a "top up" that is unlawful, however logical and reasonable I am sure you considered it to be at the time.  I would keep that to yourself. Was it a top up though or was it simply Mums contribution to her care as assessed by Social Servcies. We often get to use the wrong expression by mistake.

The reason I mention it is that as you called it a "top up" then in the care world it is properly known as a "Third party Top Up" and it means just what it says on the tin. Its a third party who has to pay it. It has to come out of your own money. So even if a person does a deal on their house to avoid care costs, to get the kind of care you want for a loved one you may end up paying out of your own pocket, as a third party top up, rather than Mum paying out of her house.

The way the law on this operates is that the Local Authority undertake a financial assessment of the person needing care and decide whether or not they should meet some or all of their own costs. Once they decide that a person does not meet the criteria, and thus the Local Authority has to pay, that decision means that the person has insufficient funds to pay for their own care. The Local Authority has a legal duty to protect that person in their care and that extends to their financial affairs as well. So, as the decision is that she can't afford to pay for her own care she cannot pay any top up out of her own monies.

If she dies penniless and some other member of the family then asks where her money has gone, those who spent it when they should have paid the top up could find themselves in a tricky situation no matter how honest their intentions.

Where a third party top up is in place, and the Local Authority find that it is being paid out of the savings of the person in care, the Local Authority can take an action in court to recover it on  behalf of the care resident.

Like I said earlier, it's not quite as simple as folks think.

Phil

Double post, sorry.

Just to say I think we have rather dragged this topic off from the original question.  I do hope the original poster gets the matter resolved with Barclays, who IMHO were rather trying it on.   Most people would just have paid up unquestioningly, assuming that as the bank had asked them to pay, then they must.     

Quote: Originally posted by Graham on 08/9/2012

---

If I am correct (most probably not) our cousins in Scotland do NOT pay for care (or prescriptions, further education etc etc) and niether do our Welsh cousins. Again correct me if I am wrong but WHY is that fair to the rest of the UK?

---

If I am correct (most probably not) our cousins in Scotland do NOT pay for care (or prescriptions, further education etc etc) and niether do our Welsh cousins. Again correct me if I am wrong but WHY is that fair to the rest of the UK?

Well the English pay their taxes and then the Government gives a grant, or subsidy to Scotland out of those taxes. Scotland receives about £2000 per person more in government subsidy for its expenses than is made available for residents of England. This figure does not include money poured into Halifax Bank of Scotland and the Royal Bank of Scotland to keep them solvent nor does it include anything towards the bonusses Directors of Direct Line are about to receive from the floatation of that part of the Royal Bank of Scotland.

In accordance with the principle of it being better to give than receive this makes those of us South of the Border feel so much better about ourselves so stop whinging and enjoy. We are getting a baccalaureate and they are not, still that's too late for me

Phil

On the subject of care homes, a lot of valid points have been made ref who pays ,

My boss's MIL has recently gone into a private care home, rather than use her savings the've rented her house and use her private pension to cover the cost, surely this has to be the way forward, eventually when the time comes the remaining siblings will inherit the full value of the house which is what the lady always wanted to do.

Bessie      

Hi I can totally understand where you are coming from Graham. I sadly lost my dad on april14 this year and my mam passed away a week later. The banks and everything has just been a true pain. My dad left a wiil but mam didnt dad left the small amount he had to my sister and myself as my mam was in a home with alzheimers. About 6 weeks after their deaths i received a letter from DWP saying they were owed 999 pounds for my mams care home fees for may 2010 till october 2010. I know they were all paid as either my sister or myself paid them for my dad.What realy annoys me is why let it go for 2 years if it was supposedly unpaid. As up to now have not paid and have no intention of paying my mams insurance policy just covered her funeral costs

Quote: Originally posted by cwdc56768 on 09/9/2012

---

..........................

Ask anyone who has care for their parent paid for by the state. Are they happy with the way Mum is looked after?...............................................

............................................................

Phil 

---