The Preacherman

Pensioner In £650K House Says Council Should Pay For Care

46 posts in this topic

The comments with arrows up vs arrows down are shocking. What a bunch of entitled self aggrandizing 'im alright jack' nimby old codgers must be reading that article.

The Mail is a parallel universe, the red arrows are the sensible comments. Teachers salary, pension, various benefits and allowances, £650k house with zero capital gains tax.

This woman is not 'poor' or 'hard done by' at all.

Why should someone else pay for her care when she has the means?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, no sympathy. She could release equity and stay put.

My mother is also 93, her house was sold to pay care home fees of around £45K a year.

She's been there 4 years now. None of us (4 kids) thought it remotely unfair that she should fund herself.

On the contrary, were glad when crisis point finally came that we could choose a home ourselves, and not have social workers shoving her in any old wee-smelling place that happened to have a room available.

She was too demented to give an opinion, but if she'd had her marbles would certainly have agreed.

could not agree more - maybe the old should make a 'living will' to say what they want to happen to them when they are certified unable to cope - then maybe all this fuss about the 'family home' being sold would not be thrown up every time.

this woman is not penniless or even near it.

Edited by olliegog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she's anything like my gran she's got another 10 years of burden in her yet

With a 600k house there is most likely inheritance tax to pay. She has probably left it too late now, but if she has family she could have sold up and given some to them. Many in this situation. Best advice is to prepare while you still have some health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Story smells very fishy to me. Local authorities do not require you to sell your home (or take out a new mortgage) to fund in-home care, as the article suggests.

If she were to go into full-time residential or nursing home care then yes, her house would have to be sold to pay the care home fees.

But if she is still living in the house, the council would simply take a charge against the property. This wouldn't have to be paid until the old dear passed away or went into a care home.

I suspect the hand of a greedy relative behind this story - not happy with the fact that part of their inheritance is likely to be 'wasted' on providing care for their mother.

Probably correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but this woman is ex-public sector and so is entitled to everything, don't you know that the pubic sector is ENTITLED, so pay up.

According to her Wikipedia page, she worked briefly in the public sector during the early years of her career, but thereafter worked for Maria Montessori's organisation and a number of voluntary and non-profit bodies, none of which, I would guess, derived the bulk of their income from the taxpayer. Therefore, I think it would be rather misleading to describe her as ex-public sector, pure and simple. She also worked at Eton, which isn't exactly public sector, either. In fact, she left a safe public sector job for life in order to pursue her research and teaching interests on more or less a freelance basis. That probably explains why she didn't accumulate much of a pension, hence her current predicament.

Neither the Wail nor Wikipedia mention her having had any children (which doesn't in itself mean that she didn't, of course), which, if so, makes it somewhat perplexing that she is so reluctant to MEW her house. Perhaps she wants to ensure a legacy for one of the causes or organisations she was involved in. In any case, I think the tone of some of the messages in this thread is a little unfair. Unless the Wikipedia article is grossly misleading, material wealth was clearly not a high priority for her during her working life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bet the winter fuel allowance doesn't make much odds to a £650k house.

When you save for a rainy day it's always best to keep an eye out for the rain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have agovt organised scheme to simply place a charge on the home for the bill, with a low interest rate set. It will then be collected when both die or they move out permanently to a residential home. And if the govt wants to cap this of make everyone pay the £38k or whatever, then the bill would form part of it. No moving out and all fees controlled, to avoid ramping up.

In principal I agree. In practice our beloved government are sh1t at implementing anything, let alone a charge against a house. Private sector has filled the gap in their absence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have agovt organised scheme to simply place a charge on the home for the bill, with a low interest rate set. It will then be collected when both die or they move out permanently to a residential home. And if the govt wants to cap this of make everyone pay the £38k or whatever, then the bill would form part of it. No moving out and all fees controlled, to avoid ramping up.

Totally agree: RPI+3%, just like loans for student fees. Put the care bill into a loan and charge 8.5% interest annually, then collect from the estate as part of IHT. Simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally agree: RPI+3%, just like loans for student fees. Put the care bill into a loan and charge 8.5% interest annually, then collect from the estate as part of IHT. Simple.

Assuming there is anything left on the estate. She can still MEW for herself or her grandkids! You can guarantee the estate will be worth nothing or possibly be a liability by the time the state tries to cash in the debts. Who does pay the debts of a deceased person anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Who does pay the debts of a deceased person anyway?

At the moment, no-one: after probate is complete, if your estate is in the red, your creditors have to eat the loss. No-one can inherit liabilities or debts involuntarily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again I'm totally perplexed by the comments on here.

Putting the callous heartlessness of the tone of these responses aside for one moment, maybe someone could explain to me why, after doing the right things (paying taxes, saving, taking a huge risk on an extortinate long term loan to buy a HOME, etc) anyone should then be forced to sell up in order to pay for care?

From what I understand, if someone of the same age, with similar life opportunities and income had simply squandered it all away, they would be eligible for free care!

So what I'm hearing is if you p*ss it up the wall, it's fine to get handouts?

I'm afraid if society decides caring for the aged is a universal benefit of living in a 'civilised society' then it should simply be free for all.

However if it's a service only available to those who can afford it then we should be more like America and let the poor and irresponsible perish.

No shades of grey.

I'm for universal benefits, and if this old dear wants to leave tonnes of cash to her offspring, that's her decision!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again I'm totally perplexed by the comments on here.

Putting the callous heartlessness of the tone of these responses aside for one moment, maybe someone could explain to me why, after doing the right things (paying taxes, saving, taking a huge risk on an extortinate long term loan to buy a HOME, etc) anyone should then be forced to sell up in order to pay for care?

From what I understand, if someone of the same age, with similar life opportunities and income had simply squandered it all away, they would be eligible for free care!

So what I'm hearing is if you p*ss it up the wall, it's fine to get handouts?

I'm afraid if society decides caring for the aged is a universal benefit of living in a 'civilised society' then it should simply be free for all.

However if it's a service only available to those who can afford it then we should be more like America and let the poor and irresponsible perish.

No shades of grey.

I'm for universal benefits, and if this old dear wants to leave tonnes of cash to her offspring, that's her decision!

What are you working and saving all that money for?

You don't need handouts if you have sufficient provisions, so why are they asking for them? Is it because some poor sod who hasn't been as fortunate, hard working, idle, lacked foresight, just unlucky etc... happens to be getting something for free because they need to have it for free as they cannot pay for it, and you don't want to part with the pile of gold you have stashed under your bed for just such a time as you need it?

Perhaps we should have universal credit to make things equal. But perhaps we should also ensure there is no ownership or acquisition of wealth to ensure that everything is fair as well. Take your money, take your choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are you working and saving all that money for?

You don't need handouts if you have sufficient provisions, so why are they asking for them? Is it because some poor sod who hasn't been as fortunate, hard working, idle, lacked foresight, just unlucky etc... happens to be getting something for free because they need to have it for free as they cannot pay for it, and you don't want to part with the pile of gold you have stashed under your bed for just such a time as you need it?

Perhaps we should have universal credit to make things equal. But perhaps we should also ensure there is no ownership or acquisition of wealth to ensure that everything is fair as well. Take your money, take your choice.

Interesting. I this idea.....a lot! Seems fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grandmother of six, so it says in the article.

Perhaps, given she has a £650,000 home either,

1) release equity in the manner discussed previously

2) one of these six (or entire family) move in and help her to stay at home, the other 5 contribute and pay towards costs.

3) all of these 6 pay for the care by family agreed contributions.

4) the grandchildren pay for full time home help

With 6 sets of grandchildren in most likely middle age, this should be the first point of call, the grandmother could then write them all into the will for inherritance to make sure everyone is happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She should have course pissed it up the wall on foreign holidays and fancy gadgets , making sure to MEW every last penny in the place leaving herself with nothing.

Then the council would have paid for everything.

Its the British way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet again I'm totally perplexed by the comments on here.

Putting the callous heartlessness of the tone of these responses aside for one moment, maybe someone could explain to me why, after doing the right things (paying taxes, saving, taking a huge risk on an extortinate long term loan to buy a HOME, etc) anyone should then be forced to sell up in order to pay for care?

From what I understand, if someone of the same age, with similar life opportunities and income had simply squandered it all away, they would be eligible for free care!

So what I'm hearing is if you p*ss it up the wall, it's fine to get handouts?

When you have a house worth £650k you could easily sell it, live in a nice sensible size property and live very well off the rest of the money.

The whole debate of people never working and getting benefits comes up from time to time on here but you might have noticed that too.

There is very little incentive to save in this country. You might as well not bother. That doesn't mean that situation is right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't need handouts if you have sufficient provisions, so why are they asking for them? Is it because some poor sod who hasn't been as fortunate, hard working, idle, lacked foresight, just unlucky etc... happens to be getting something for free because they need to have it for free as they cannot pay for it, and you don't want to part with the pile of gold you have stashed under your bed for just such a time as you need it?

Perhaps we should have universal credit to make things equal. But perhaps we should also ensure there is no ownership or acquisition of wealth to ensure that everything is fair as well. Take your money, take your choice.

Or we could just bring in LVT and citizens income...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid if society decides caring for the aged is a universal benefit of living in a 'civilised society' then it should simply be free for all.

I'm afraid you're confused.

Nothing is free. Someone, i.e. taxpayers (not 'Government') has to pay.

Why should I pay for someone who has more money and equity than I do, AND has more than enough money to pay for something themselves?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Putting the callous heartlessness of the tone of these responses aside for one moment, maybe someone could explain to me why, after doing the right things (paying taxes, saving, taking a huge risk on an extortinate long term loan to buy a HOME, etc) anyone should then be forced to sell up in order to pay for care?

Encapsulates quite neatly the concept that it is the state who should provide for everyone. The consequences are dependency for those who claim benefits and equal rights for those that have provided for themselves because it would be unfair otherwise.

Surely her family should be responsible for looking after her if she needs care. Not you or me as taxpayers. Why does she have a right to stay in, what I presume to be a largish house, when she could make other arrangements. Whether it involved selling the house, entering into an equity release scheme (not that I think they are sensible) or getting her family to look after her.

In France I've read that it is common to sell your house and retain a life interest in it. The capital provides your pension and you occupy your house until your death. The purchaser in effect gambles on the purchase discount being greater than your life expectancy. I guess there could be some risk for the vendor, but they're foreigners and French at that, so not a problem of great concern to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you have a house worth £650k you could easily sell it, live in a nice sensible size property and live very well off the rest of the money.

The whole debate of people never working and getting benefits comes up from time to time on here but you might have noticed that too.

There is very little incentive to save in this country. You might as well not bother. That doesn't mean that situation is right.

Trouble is, like so many old people, she didn't downsize while she was still reasonably fit and capable, because she couldn't face all the hassle/upheaval, and leaving everything familiar.

Now she can't possibly do it without a huge amount of help - or rather someone else managing everything for her - and in any case is probably too old/frail to adapt to change. Even things like different controls on a new cooker can fret them to death.

As so often, eventually it'll probably be a case of leaving a long-term home for a care home.

Or having 24/7 carers in, which can work out even more expensive.

Edited by Mrs Bear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.