Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

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


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 Silent Dancer

Silent Dancer

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 581 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 05:11 PM

Typical Daily Fail article. Why should I as a tax payer fund this woman to stay in a £650K home?

Why can't her offspring help her out if it so important for her to stay in her own home or are they too concerned about maximising their inheritance?

She devoted her life to others. Now, aged 93, this eminent ex-teacher faces ruin over £5,000 care bill

She spent her retirement helping the homeless after a career at the forefront of education.

In return, perhaps she could reasonably have expected to be cared for in her old age.

Now, at the age of 93, Phyllis Wallbank fears she will lose her house after being sent a bill from the council for nearly £5,000.

Mrs Wallbank, who is too frail to feed herself, has been ordered to cover the costs of the carers sent to help her with her meals over the past year. She has just £300 in her bank account, and is worried that she will have to leave her home near Eton College, where she used to work.

Read more: http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1mknyKIXU



#2 Redcellar

Redcellar

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,804 posts
  • Location:Overseas

Posted 18 February 2012 - 05:19 PM

Typical Daily Fail article. Why should I as a tax payer fund this woman to stay in a £650K home?

Why can't her offspring help her out if it so important for her to stay in her own home or are they too concerned about maximising their inheritance?[b]


I had a similar conversation with some pensioners this week. They said why should they be forced to sell to pay for care, particularly if its only for one of them to go into a home because of medical conditions.
I agreed. Why should they be forced to move.
My answer was to take advantage of those, release equity and get to stay in the place until you die, schemes. Sure there will be no inheritance for the offspring, the company owns the deeds. But it's fair and covers the costs and lets one of them stay in the home they love and know.
Allegedly.

#3 hedgefunded

hedgefunded

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,092 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 05:34 PM

Of course she should move. If she lived in a £200k house with £450k in cash she'd have to pay for her care.

#4 singlemalt

singlemalt

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,398 posts
  • Location:Up North

Posted 18 February 2012 - 05:55 PM

Just another example of someone who has failed to prepare for their old age simply because they ‘expected’ to be care for by the system.

What system would this be perchance?

Where is this much vaunted covenant that guarantees that you will be cared for in your own home in your final years simply because you’re a British citizen and have “paid in” all your life. Where is it?

#5 Executive Sadman

Executive Sadman

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,184 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:06 PM

Tight fisted old bat.


'Devoted' her life to others :lol:

She never got a salary for being a teacher/indoctrinator then?

She said she now has to borrow against the house she bought almost 70 years ago ‘to pay to be fed’, adding: ‘I worked very hard to buy this house, I saved every penny. I don’t want to leave.

Her and the rest of us. Your'e still wealthier than 95% of the population dear, regardless of how wrinkly and frail you are.


A grandmother of six, she was made an MBE in 1996 and continued her charity work feeding the homeless after retiring.

Wonder who alerted the sensibilities of the DM then. Worried 'their' inheritance might end up supporting her in her old age?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted Image

#6 Executive Sadman

Executive Sadman

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,184 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:10 PM

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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Posted Image

#7 gadget

gadget

    HPC Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,477 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:13 PM

Just another example of someone who has failed to prepare for their old age simply because they ‘expected’ to be care for by the system.

What system would this be perchance?

Where is this much vaunted covenant that guarantees that you will be cared for in your own home in your final years simply because you’re a British citizen and have “paid in” all your life. Where is it?


Quite. The point of "saving for retirement" is to spend it when you retire.

To wail and cry because your savings are all tied up in your "home" and its against your human rights not to pass on your home debt free to your offspring is mad.

No other generation expected to live alone in large family houses in their twilight years. Miss Haversham was not meant to be an ideal to aspire to....

#8 winkie

winkie

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 26,776 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:22 PM

Quite. The point of "saving for retirement" is to spend it when you retire.

To wail and cry because your savings are all tied up in your "home" and its against your human rights not to pass on your home debt free to your offspring is mad.

No other generation expected to live alone in large family houses in their twilight years. Miss Haversham was not meant to be an ideal to aspire to....



No, your family lived with you and cared for you till the end......just saying, these days there are so many elderly people living alone, stuck in their home, their children living miles away or continents away....whether it is the parents escaping the kids or the kids escaping the parents is debatable. ;)
What you don't owe won't worry you.

Less can be more.

#9 R K

R K

    I live on HPC!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,843 posts
  • Location:Republik of Mancunia

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:39 PM

Very sad. Fortunately she has many options available to her to enable her to stay in her home for as long as she wishes. She's very fortunate. Shame on Paul Dacre for his ghastly hate-stirring rag.

not least :-

A grandmother of six



"The problem with capitalism is that eventually you end up with everyone else's money" RK
"We have now entered The Great Rebalancing 2007-20xx" - RK
"Gold will go to $1000, Silver to $18" - RK August 2011
QE £100bn and build 1m council homes - RK
Carney announces the launch of Empire 2.0 - Rise of the Banksters Oct '13


#10 MrPin

MrPin

    Mild Irritant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,681 posts
  • Location:Turnip Land
  • About Me:Fount of wisdom, and pinnacle of taste!

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:42 PM

A 93 year old lady is not going to be a burden on your taxes for very long, is she! :blink:

Have a heart!
Ignorance can be cured! Stupidity cannot!

#11 Squeeky

Squeeky

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 309 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:57 PM

A 93 year old lady is not going to be a burden on your taxes for very long, is she! :blink:

Have a heart!


If she managed to live alone until into her 90's, with the help of a care home, she could easily see another 10 years maybe many, many more. Just how long should people with sufficient means (who aren't going to be living in their house, hence the care home!) be provided for?

#12 spongeh

spongeh

    HPC Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 359 posts
  • Location:Middle Earth

Posted 18 February 2012 - 06:59 PM

A 93 year old lady is not going to be a burden on your taxes for very long, is she! :blink:

Have a heart!


If she's anything like my gran she's got another 10 years of burden in her yet
You only live once, so enjoy it while you can

#13 Mrs Bear

Mrs Bear

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,769 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 07:14 PM

A 93 year old lady is not going to be a burden on your taxes for very long, is she! :blink:

Have a heart!


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.

#14 geezer466

geezer466

    HPC Senior Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,102 posts
  • Location:200 Meters from Probably the Most Famous Prom in the World

Posted 18 February 2012 - 07:14 PM

A 93 year old lady is not going to be a burden on your taxes for very long, is she! :blink:

Have a heart!


That's not really the point.

Everyone should pay irrespective of means testing assets or not. No pay = no care.

That should sort out the inequality in the system...... :ph34r:
This is the space for the signature thingy.........

#15 Democorruptcy

Democorruptcy

    .

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,707 posts

Posted 18 February 2012 - 07:50 PM

She should have sold the house to one of her children for £1 and then rented it from them claiming housing benefit.

Democorruptcy
If you say "Democorruptcy" quickly, it sounds a bit like "Democracy". In a "Democracy" people vote for politicians who represent their interests. In the UK's "Democorruptcy" people can only vote for expense fiddling thieving MPs who are in the hip pocket of big business and the finance sector.

Governbankment
A "Governbankment" is a Government that has no line between itself and banks. It diverts public money (our taxes) to private companies (banks). George Osborne's Help to Buy Bail Banks, will see our taxes go to bankers to cover their losses on mortgages that default. The UK's Governbankment will even pay bankers "reasonable repossession fees" on Help to Bail Bank mortgages that default.

The Funding for Lending Scheme (FLS) is stealing from savers to make them pay for crimes by bankers. Via lower interest on savings, all the bank fines for PPI, LIBOR, interest rates swaps, etc. are being paid by savers so that bankers can keep pocketing bonuses. 

"We need to make a really big change: from an economy built on debt to an economy built on savings" - David Camoron Jan 2009
"Printing money is the last resort of desperate governments when all other policies have failed" - George Osborne Jan 2009
- So what do Camoron & Osborne do? Print money and leave interest rates at 0.5% when inflation is over 5%

If it is asserted that civilization is a real advance in the condition of man -- and I think that it is, though only the wise improve their advantages -- it must be shown that it has produced better dwellings without making them more costly; and the cost of a thing is the amount of what I will call life which is required to be exchanged for it, immediately or in the long run.
http://classiclit.ab...en-Part-2_4.htm

I want to tell you my secret now.... I see debt people





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users