Duty To Care For Parents?

[El Cid 210]

I visit my daughters grandad who is 93, he is very able for his age, but very much on the decline.

He lives on his own, in the marital 3 bedroomed house. He gets very few visits from family, probably because he was and is a controlling parent.

He goes to the church and cafes for meals, so he does get out. He may go into decline and the council will use the equity from his £200,000 house to pay for his care.

He has been too shortsighted to plan for his old age, so that his house is still in his own name. How many older people does this happen to?

[Janus 28]

Probably quite a lot El cid.

 

Not just due to 

shortsightedness.  Circumstances can contribute to the situation. I've also heard of situations where the family have kicked dad out once the property has been put in to their name.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Janus

[Chez2 10]

I have no idea how many people fail to plan. Perhaps you could suggest he see a solicitor, draw up a will and put the house in joint names so it can't be taken away and used to pay for his care?  

[willman 10]

Why shouldn't his house be used for care? 

 

If you're fit and want a physio you pay for it,if you need a cleaner pay for them.

If people want to buy anything they use their own assets  to do so, why should it be different for care provision - not medical need.

[El Cid 210]

49 minutes ago, willman said:

Why shouldn't his house be used for care?

If that is what the rules are, then it will happen. Fifteen+ years ago my father moved into rented flats and sold his house, the procedes then went to family.

If the older generation plan, they can leave their asset to family, unless its a sudden illness or death. If they have a good relationship with their children, it might be posible for them to build an anex adjoining or very close to the childrens house

[Agent Orange 11]

27 minutes ago, El Cid said:

If that is what the rules are, then it will happen. Fifteen+ years ago my father moved into rented flats and sold his house, the procedes then went to family.

If the older generation plan, they can leave their asset to family, unless its a sudden illness or death. If they have a good relationship with their children, it might be posible for them to build an anex adjoining or very close to the childrens house

Just because they have not left anything to the family doesn't necessarily mean a lack of planning.  It might be they chose not to leave anything to the family. 

[Chez2 10]

3 hours ago, willman said:

Why shouldn't his house be used for care? 

 

If you're fit and want a physio you pay for it,if you need a cleaner pay for them.

If people want to buy anything they use their own assets  to do so, why should it be different for care provision - not medical need.

I have seen some people on good money spend everything then when they hit a bad patch they get everything paid for. On the other hand I have seen people struggle all their life and be careful with their money, buy their own home, put money in the bank. When it comes to getting old the former gets all their care paid for them whereas the latter has to spend all their own money on care.  I do know of cases where a generation in the middle has died and the grandchildren live with grandparents. If the grandparents didn't protect their property then what would happen to the grandchildren if the grandparent(s) need to go into care?  Do you think it unreasonable for the grandparent(s) to make sure their grandchildren have a roof over their heads? 

[willman 10]

Just now, Chez2 said:

I have seen some people on good money spend everything then when they hit a bad patch they get everything paid for. On the other hand I have seen people struggle all their life and be careful with their money, buy their own home, put money in the bank. When it comes to getting old the former gets all their care paid for them whereas the latter has to spend all their own money on care.  I do know of cases where a generation in the middle has died and the grandchildren live with grandparents. If the grandparents didn't protect their property then what would happen to the grandchildren if the grandparent(s) need to go into care?  Do you think it unreasonable for the grandparent(s) to make sure their grandchildren have a roof over their heads? 

I think its wrong that grandparents expect a handout in old age so that they can give someone money that they have stashed away.

 

I've written wills for a living i've heard every possible variation on the anecdotes you share and worse, yet the overriding reason is because people don't think they should pay for something when someone else is getting it for nothing.

 

 

[geared 300]

4 hours ago, Chez2 said:

I have no idea how many people fail to plan. Perhaps you could suggest he see a solicitor, draw up a will and put the house in joint names so it can't be taken away and used to pay for his care?  

 

They're more than wise to that trick, they will chase for the money regardless as it's a clear attempt to get around the rules.

You need a good number of years between changing names and needing care before it's considered off limits, 10 or more I believe.

[L00b 441]

34 minutes ago, willman said:

I think its wrong that grandparents expect a handout in old age so that they can give someone money that they have stashed away.

 

I've written wills for a living i've heard every possible variation on the anecdotes you share and worse, yet the overriding reason is because people don't think they should pay for something when someone else is getting it for nothing.

For many (most?) current-day OAPs, I think a lifetime of salaried work and income taxation, and a notionally-transferrable asset base built from after-tax money, puts a different spin on 'not thinking they should pay for something when someone else getting it for nothing': many hold, rightly or wrongly, that they've paid for it over 40+ years of NI contributions.

 

I don't disagree with your overall sentiment. But I don't fully share it in this day and age of highly-distorted income levels and models, and (socially-) highly-prejudicial tax avoidance by corporates and HNWIs, however.

[Hadron 10]

It is his house and he is in control. He may be getting older and more frail so it is up to him to make the plans for the future. It looks like he could do with some support but it looks like the family don't want to communicate with him because of his controlling nature. 

[Annie Bynnol 611]

For ordinary folk you should transfer of any assets to other individuals or set up trusts now.

Any tax or care liability falls away over a seven year period if allowed . It has to be  shown that it is not a way of avoiding tax and care bills.

The tax office and Council will ask for details of financial and property transactions and if they do find that you are avoiding your dues, they can recoup the money. 

 

The simplest thing to do (for ordinary folk) is to set up a Trust so that if one partner dies half of the house goes into a trust which is for the benefit of the children.

This allows the surviving parent to live in the house and the Trust will guarantee that the children get at least half the value of the house.

 

From April there is a £72000 cap for care but this excludes food and accommodation.

A person with mutiple medical needs can apply for Government support.  

 

Get expert advice. Do not trust companies, banks, charities etc. who will sell you to a sales team who will then try to sell you an expensive financial product.