Wanless Report - care of the elderly

[Russethouse]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4857606.stm

There is a lot of media discussion about this in the UK today, as I understand it, basically Sir Derek Wanless has found that it is unfair to expect people to sell their homes to fund their care when they are unable to look after themselves.

What happens in France - would the French government expect someone to sell up in order to fund their time in a home ?

 

[BJSLIV]

The first port of call are the children(if there are any). It is their responsibility to care or make arrangements for aged parents. Even those who haven't been in touch for many years can be tracked down by the system.

 Must be quite annoying if you were expecting an inheritance rather than a bill!.

I'm not sure how it operates where there is nobody to pick up the tab.

[Teamedup]

As BJSLIV said, kids first ........ and you sell your home to pay for your care ......... my friend's mother has just had to do this. And my friend was having to fork out during the several months it took to sell the place.

 

I don't know what happens to people without a family though.

 

 

[Russethouse]

Even if it would cause hardship to the childrens families ?

[Patf]

I don't know about the french system but the others seem to have

covered it. But as far as England - I completely disagree with the new

recommendations. We sold my Mum's house to pay for her care and rightly

so. She could have kept the last £18000 for her own use but sadly died

before it came to that. For those sons and daughters who want or need

their inheritance the answer is to have the house transferred into

their names well before the  need for care for the parent arises.

In Scotland the govt. used to pay for the care but may have changed

now. Pat. ps I wonder what the charges are in France for a care home? Mum was paying £250+ per week in 2002.

[Russethouse]

I object to the present system because I think it penalizes people who worked hard to save and look after themselves - if two people are being cared for in adjacent beds for example , one with their own house, the other not, why should the one contribute when the other doesn't.?

After all they probably saved for the house out of their already taxed money and further if they have savings, pay on those.

The Government after all, collects vast amounts in inheritance tax - just how many bites of the cherry does the chancellor get compared to the person who earned the money in the first place?

[Tourangelle]

[quote user="Russethouse"]Even if it would cause hardship to the childrens families ?[/quote]

It's means tested, but they don't just ask the children, they also ask the grandchildren. And their spouses. You have to contribute, or else give up the inheritance

[Val_2]

We have had quite a few requests for financial help for relatives in the local home on the CCAS here due to the fact that the families don't even have enough to live on themselves being agriculteurs with very little pension. I have a parisien friend who is an only child and she has to pay 50% of her mother's costs and its not even a swish retirement home, just the local hôpital for the elderly. Could be why most families keep relatives of a great age with them unless they get too ill or infirm to manage. My 96-year old neighbour who is still pretty sprightly gets wheels on meals daily but still cooks a large lunch for therest of the family.

[Russethouse]

I wonder how it works if you are British and your adult children in the UK ? The house would go I suppose - but then what ?

 

[Gardian]

Thanks for the cheery thought Gay. Still, at least the grub in a Care Home here would be better than the swill served up to my poor late M-in-Law.

[Dick Smith]

My stepfather (74) was in hospital recently, and I have to say that he was treated kindly by some staff, but not with care or with dignity. He was allowed to stay in stained pyjamas, urine bottles were left under his bed for hours, he was not carefully fed. When he was sent home it was without notes: he died on the way...

[Russethouse]

Dick, thats dreadful ! Poor man..........

 

 

[Dick Smith]

Actually, with 50% lung function, kidney failure, asthma and severe bronchitis they let/made him walk up two flights of stairs.

[Russethouse]

Thats perverse, several years ago I had a horrid throat infection(bad enough to hospitalize me) and I had to have a medical photograph (hey, my throat may be in a text book somewhere - fame at last )

They absolutely insisted a porter pushed me to the photographer in a wheel chair, even though I actually asked to walk, I was quite well enough for that.

Something very wrong somewhere.........

[KathyC]

Dick, was this in the UK or France?

[Dotty0]

My mother has worked in care all her working life.  Latterly (sp) with elderely people.  She has told me some real horror stories.  But going back to this report thingy, it really doesn't pay to look after one's finances for later in life.  My Mum said that she has cared for the very wealthy and the very poor and they both get exactly the same care, food, rooms etc.  I'm not saying just because your not well off you should be treated  poorly, but the one's who have struggled to pay their own way really are penalised.

I was listening to Radio 2 online yesterday, to the Jeremy Vine show.  They debated this report and there was some idiott going on about it being tough, and that's life with regards to people having to sell everything up to pay for their own care.

Be warned though if you are thinking of signing over your property to your children, you have to do it, I think 5 years before your care is needed, otherwise I think the government can force you to sell it.  This is the case with people that loose their memories.

Dotty

 

 

[Gluestick]

There is much myth and misinformation about the time which must elapse, relative to "Gifting" real property to those seen as eventual heirs and escaping the greedy grasp of local authorities.

In fact, there is NO safe time limit: the idea of Seven years, is in fact the basis for a gift escaping the Inland Revenue net for Inheritence Tax. Local authorities can go back as many years as they like, in theory and have been pretty hardnosed in attacking assets.

The only potentially safe way, is to create a trust, for certain clearly defined purposes, which has nothing to do with avoiding paying for care or any other benefit. Endeavouring to avoid an obligation to pay benefit is in fact very naughty, from government's perspective and is normally attacked, robustly.

All cases tend to be marginally different: no one size fits all and very specialised professional advice is essential.

In Scotland, of course, this does not now apply: Scottish Parliament reversed the law set by the Rapacious Upstart, AKA the Grantham Mauler (as John Wells so appositely nicknamed her.).

UK Case, only. No knowledge about this in terms of France at all.

 

[Will]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

... The only potentially safe way, is to create a trust...
UK Case, only. No knowledge about this in terms of France at all.

[/quote]

As trusts are not recognised in France (which also has time and value limits for gifting property) the above solution will not work here. Professional advice is definitely needed, particularly in view of French succession law and inheritance tax legislation which shares both assets and liabilities among surviving family members.

[Russethouse]

Surely being a homeowner or not, is not the only inequality. In the case of a couple it may be that a frail, but well partner is not able to look after their husband/wife at home, or the person in care had an adult, but working child living with them.

Surely in those cases the house isn't or can't be sold ? Or is it ?

I think with the seven year thing, if they can prove the  intention was to escape these fees, they will come after you.

[KathyC]

In the UK there are many exceptions to having to sell your property to pay for care home fees. One of these is if you have a partner still living in it. It's also possible to have your fees deferred and paid from the sale of your property after you die. I think that people get muddled over the 7 year thing as this has to do with how long you have to survive after giving away capital to avoid inheritance tax. There is a very good explanation of all this in Home and Community section of www.direct.gov.uk

[Gluestick]

Will:

Yyes, I did state that it was UK case only. And yes, trusts are not a recognised legal entity in France, as they are in he UK and elsewhere.

The old method used to be to have a company own the property (based in Gibralter, for example) and allow the residents to live there. If you wanted to sell, then you simply sold the company: no transfer of property, as property still owned by the original purchaser: the company: no taxes, no capital gains, nice. This effective loophole (much used for non-Spanish residents in Spain, years ago) has been blocked in various ways, now.

Also, as I said, this is a very complex area and is case-specific. People's circumstances do vary widely.

Whether real property can be attacked when two people live there, would depend on how the property is owned, of course. Another variable!

If someone is terminally ill and requires care, then apparently no attack on the property can be made. Despite this, since they did not know their rights, many people have been compelled to sell their homes!

Bottom lline: plan well ahead and take expert legal and financial advice.

 

[Russethouse]

I think Wanless has highlighted the relationship with actual health issues as opposed to 'old age' problems and said the two should dovetail more (I believe)

 

[Gluestick]

Yes, I do agree, Gay.

One case I saw yesterday highlighted on TV, was about a son, caring for his mother. The Mum had to go into care: but she owned the house. And the local authority were insisting it was sold: leaving the son effectively homeless. No one had recompensed him for taking care of his Mum, however, for many years.

Don't get me wrong: we would all, I'm sure, care for our elderly parents: my Mum passed away just over a year ago, and she was 96 and in her 97th year. As she became older and infirm, she needed increasing levels of family support and care. At one time, it did seem as if she would have to go into care, as the local hospital (who had not actually made any real attempt to diagnose and/or alleviate her condition!), wanted to discharge her................................................

Sadly, she worsened and shortly after died in hospital. Mum in Law only a few years before: and a similar unpleasant story.

I may ruffle a few feathers, here, as the matter of state subsidy is, I know, a prickly matter, however, I do believe that since local authorities were compelled to pass over care to the private sector and encouraged to close their homes, this whole matter has become a morass of inequality and "Fast Buck" opportunism, which in what is represented as a moral society is anathama to myself.

I cannot see any social benefit from all the zillions we were told would be saved, or the greater efficiency we were promised.

Sorry, I do feel very strongly on these issues, perhaps because I am now becoming older![:(]

I personally believe that society owes a big duty of care to those who created the infrastructure now enjoyed by the younger. At present, it does not seem to demonstrate this: rather, politicians talk endlessly about the costs of longevity, as if it is a social disorder. And what is more, the fault of the old!

 

[Patf]

I think the report also said something about enabling the elderly to

remain in their own homes as long as possible, which is an excellent

idea. However in our family's case the cost of this would have been

more than a care home, as mum needed 24 hour attention. So some form of

supplement of these fees would have helped. I should add that the

standard of care was excellent in the home and the staff so kind you

can hardly believe. My parents did save up, but in order to pay for

their own care in their old age, and not necessarily to leave it to us,

which fortunately we didn't need. The Home has now had to close down

because the owner couldn't find enough staff to work for the very low

wages. For those who think elderly people shouldn't have to sell their

home, who is going to pay instead? Should the govt. just print some

more money? Remember it costs £1000 to £15000 per person per month, and

maybe double that in a nursing home. Pat.

[Dotty0]

Patf

I don't know what the answer is, and I know there are a multitude of scenarios.  But why should someone who has worked his fingers to the bone, saved his money and paid off his house only to be told he must sell it in order to pay for his care, whilst someone else can be irresponsible with money and therefore got any, be entitled to the same care only it hasn't cost them anything.

Seems the goal posts are always being moved.

Dotty