Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Pauly_Boy

20,000 A Year Sell Homes To Fund Care

Recommended Posts

Well a great example of how the boomers are screwing their parents, but at least these old folk have these nice big assets and a good income from pensions, which is more than than youth have.

20,000 a year sell homes to fund care: New figures reveal growing toll of families struggling to pay soaring fees

More than 20,000 pensioners were forced to sell their homes to pay for residential care last year.

The shocking figure, which can be revealed for the first time today, means an average of nearly 60 a day have had to sell up because they cannot afford expensive care home fees.

It shows just how many of those who have worked, saved and paid taxes all their lives are being penalised by the system – as are their families, who are seeing their inheritances vanish.

The figure further highlights how the scandal of Britain’s crumbling care system deepened during Labour’s years in charge.

In fact, the number of those selling up has soared by 17 per cent since 2005.

Experts say the figure is likely to continue rising over the next few years because Coalition-inspired cuts to local authority budgets may mean fewer will get the help they need to stay in their own home.

Annie Kennedy and her husband

Despite paying taxes all her life, grandmother Annie Kennedy was forced to sell her house to pay for care.

She had to move into a care home three years ago after developing Alzheimer’s.

But no sooner had the former greengrocer from Margate moved in, than her daughter was landed with a huge bill from Kent County Council.

Pauline Turner was told that because her 87-year-old mother had assets of more than £23,500, she would have to meet the £1,424.76 per month cost in full.

Her mother had little cash, so she was told she would have to sell her home. The bungalow went on the market for £175,000 but because of the recession the family had to accept £140,000.

Straight away, £10,000 in care home fee arrears had to be handed to the council.

To add insult to injury, Mrs Kennedy’s pension credit of £50 a week was stopped because she had money from her house.

Her daughter Mrs Turner, a 65-year-old counsellor, claimed she had been ‘harassed’ by council officials threatening legal action if she spent the money raised by the sale of her mother’s house.

Mrs Kennedy’s husband Douglas died a decade ago. She has two grandsons and two great-grandchildren.

Mrs Turner said: ‘Mum and Dad worked hard all their lives and went without in order to buy their own home, which in those days was very hard to do.’

She said the state had created an ‘appalling boundary’ where nursing care was free but social care is means tested ‘at the equivalent of a 100 per cent tax rate’.

‘It seems that NHS managers have a vested interest in offloading patients into social care,’ she said. ‘Why should those of us who have paid tax and national insurance all our lives be treated like this?’

The statistics, seen by the Mail, show that 100,000 elderly people have sold up over the past five years to pay for care home bills.

They also show that a third of all those paying the cost of their care end up without their house. One in eight of all those who enter a home are forced to sell up.

However, pensioners who may have frittered away their cash get the full costs of care paid for by the state. As part of its Dignity for the Elderly campaign, the Daily Mail has highlighted the plight of hard-working homeowners being forced to sell up to pay for care – despite having paid taxes all their lives.

At his party’s conference in 1997, Tony Blair said: ‘I don’t want a country where the only way pensioners can get long-term care is by selling their home.’

But over the next 13 years of Labour’s watch, at least 200,000 were forced to sell up.

And yesterday, financial advisors FirstStop Advice revealed that care home fees had soared by more than 20 per cent over the past five years to an average of £25,896.

The figures are based on research by healthcare analysts Laing & Buisson and the House of Commons Library.

The Commons library produces figures every year on how many of those currently in care homes are estimated to have had to sell their home.

These reveal that at April 2010, some 47,000 have sold their home specifically to pay for care costs. By using the fact that the average care home stay in England is 26 months, it has been possible to estimate that between April 2009 and March 2010, around 21,700 sold their home – 59 every day.

This compares to 17,100 in 2001/2 and 18,500 in 2004/5.

Care services minister Paul Burstow, a Liberal Democrat, promised to get to grips with the issue.

He said: ‘Thirteen years after Tony Blair promised to bring an end to pensioners selling their homes to fund long-term care it is unforgivable that next to nothing has been done to reform the system.

‘That is why the Coalition Government has established the Commission on funding care and support to deliver a sustainable funding settlement for social care, which is a fair partnership between the state and the individual.’

Philip Davies, the Tory MP for Shipley who obtained the statistics on which the estimates are based, said: ‘This is one of the great scandals of Labour’s time in office.

‘People spent sensibly for years and built up savings so they can pass on their home to their children – and now they see it taken off them to pay for care.

‘This is possibly the biggest reason behind the culture of people thinking “It’s not worth me saving. I’ll spend all I can and when I run out the state will pay for everything”.’

Neil Duncan-Jordan, of the National Pensioners’ Convention, said: ‘If you are 28 and you break your leg, the taxpayer would pay in full for your stay in hospital.

‘But if you are 88 and have dementia, you have to go into a care home – and you have to fund that yourself. It is grossly unfair.’

Residential care bills graphic

Ros Altmann, director general of Saga, said: ‘The last government’s policies for the elderly were quite a disaster, leaving pensions and long-term care both in a real mess.

‘This Government now has to sort it all out.’

Jane Archer, chief executive of sheltered homes provider Anchor, said she expected the Coalition’s cuts to force more to move into residential care.

She said: ‘Tens of thousands will be affected by these changes, and will have to realise their assets.’

How the thrifty have to pay through the nose

England’s care system penalises the thrifty because those who have built up savings have to contribute to the cost of their care.

Anyone with assets worth more than £23,500 – including their house – of more than this has to pay something towards the cost.

Everyone below that figure gets their care free.

There is no sliding scale – either you pay everything, or you pay nothing.

The problem occurs for those who own their house but do not have much ready cash. To raise the money they have no option but to put their house up for sale.

When the money from the sale comes through, they have to hand over what they owe.

Experts have long criticised the so-called ‘cliff face’ between the National Health Service and social care, which have different funding rules.

While everyone is entitled to free NHS nursing care, social or personal care is means tested.

So when an elderly person receives nursing care, this is free on the NHS.

But personal care – help with washing and dressing, for example – is means tested.

This is complicated when the same person is receiving both types of help.

The Scottish government unveiled free personal care soon after devolution, but England has said it will not follow suit, partly because the Scottish system has proved so ruinously expensive.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1327898/20-000-families-year-sell-homes-fund-residentual-care-pensioners.html#ixzz14jtod2lz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well a great example of how the boomers are screwing their parents, but at least these old folk have these nice big assets and a good income from pensions, which is more than than youth have.

I happen to think the boomers are the ones who will be screwed, but hey ho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I happen to think the boomers are the ones who will be screwed, but hey ho.

Well tbh, the ones retiring now will be getting a pittence when they cash in their pensions because interest rates are so low, but they have made their bed and now they have to lie in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise, care homes are a ripoff. 20,000 pounds a year I think is the norm, for that amount of money you could live somewhere like China or the Phillipines (english speaking country), rent a large house or apartment and have 2 personal carers. Yet in these care homes the ratio of staff to patients is probably over 1:20.

Half of the scam is the pretence that the drugs they give the patients cost x thousands per year, this is either big pharma scamming the care homes or the care homes scamming the patients depending whose taking the biggest cut.

If the elderly knew any better they would be retiring to somewhere like the Phillipines, though I'm sure many do. Except for the ones who are well off enough to stay at home.

Another thing I've noticed is, I think more intelligent people don't lose their minds at old age and will not need a care home- that probably covers maybe half the posters on this board. For example my grandparents on my mothers side never went to a care home and just lived in their London apartment until my grandad died and my grandma is still living in the apartment by herself now- being able to look after herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise, care homes are a ripoff. 20,000 pounds a year I think is the norm, for that amount of money you could live somewhere like China or the Phillipines (english speaking country), rent a large house or apartment and have 2 personal carers. Yet in these care homes the ratio of staff to patients is probably over 1:20.

Half of the scam is the pretence that the drugs they give the patients cost x thousands per year, this is either big pharma scamming the care homes or the care homes scamming the patients depending whose taking the biggest cut.

If the elderly knew any better they would be retiring to somewhere like the Phillipines, though I'm sure many do. Except for the ones who are well off enough to stay at home.

Another thing I've noticed is, I think more intelligent people don't lose their minds at old age and will not need a care home- that probably covers maybe half the posters on this board. For example my grandparents on my mothers side never went to a care home and just lived in their London apartment until my grandad died and my grandma is still living in the apartment by herself now- being able to look after herself.

have to agree with most of that.

The fees are a rip off - lining the pocket of the care home providers - as often the aged person has the equivalent of a small bed sit and has to sit (drugged by tranquilizers or something similar) in the residents 'lounge' . There is no dignity, no privacy and not much care as there never seems to be any staff around. At least if you are self funding you get a choice (and you don't need your house any more) of where you go and if your 'hard-working' family are so concerned about their inheritance they can look after you themselves (rather than the general taxpayer).

You can also take out insurance to cover the cost for a lump sum payment - depends how fit and healthy you are - not everyone goes into a care home although it is often seen as less hassle for the rest of the family.

I know lots of people - well able to look after themselves (with a little help) into their eighties and nineties - without being parked in an overpriced care home. :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't there talks of some kind of insurance thing when you retire? Eg pay a £10k lump sum to the government and then they'll cover you old age?

Care homes are grim places though, I hope I go before I get like that but hopefully that's a few years off yet!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well tbh, the ones retiring now will be getting a pittence when they cash in their pensions because interest rates are so low, but they have made their bed and now they have to lie in it.

Yes you are right. But I was thinking more about the care in their old age. Right now, most boomers will be coming close to retirement at a cushy age, where they still have most of their health, perhaps some decent savings to go on a few cruises with. In 10-20 years time, they will be smashed by a combination of high living costs, high care costs, and perhaps even having to pay for their healthcare, sans insurance. And there will be no safety net of the children who will be too poor or too hacked off or too far away to help.

I know many boomers who are close to retirement, mostly parents or relatives of friends. On direct questioning it would appear that they are nearly fully reliant on their pension, having no other personal income, with the only significant asset being the house. It is a recipe for disaster, frankly.

One of my two charities helps the elderly, I think there will be more and more of this needed in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No surprise, care homes are a ripoff. 20,000 pounds a year I think is the norm, for that amount of money you could live somewhere like China or the Phillipines (english speaking country), rent a large house or apartment and have 2 personal carers. Yet in these care homes the ratio of staff to patients is probably over 1:20.

Half of the scam is the pretence that the drugs they give the patients cost x thousands per year, this is either big pharma scamming the care homes or the care homes scamming the patients depending whose taking the biggest cut.

If the elderly knew any better they would be retiring to somewhere like the Phillipines, though I'm sure many do. Except for the ones who are well off enough to stay at home.

Another thing I've noticed is, I think more intelligent people don't lose their minds at old age and will not need a care home- that probably covers maybe half the posters on this board. For example my grandparents on my mothers side never went to a care home and just lived in their London apartment until my grandad died and my grandma is still living in the apartment by herself now- being able to look after herself.

Care homes have to provide facilities up to a very high standard that is laid down by regulation which, to a certain extent, is based upon the worst case patient. This pushes up the cost of providing for everyone.

No-one in a care home should be charged a penny for drugs. All residents will still get their prescriptions from their HNS GP and obtain their medicines from the chemist with the normal OTC fee or FOC. Normal care homes workers do not have the necessary competences to prescribe drugs and for them to do so would be a criminal offence, I doubt that they will risk this just to jump up a fee!

tim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect less and less social care to be funded by the state. Social care costs will rocket as demand increases with demographics, and carers' wages rise because of high inflation (caused by housing costs). Anyone with assets will need to use them to pay their welfare costs. It is a reasonable way of transferring wealth back from the elderly (who need care) to the young(who provide it).

Making older people sell houses they don't need to fund care which they do need should be welcomed as socially responsible recycling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect less and less social care to be funded by the state. Social care costs will rocket as demand increases with demographics, and carers' wages rise because of high inflation (caused by housing costs). Anyone with assets will need to use them to pay their welfare costs. It is a reasonable way of transferring wealth back from the elderly (who need care) to the young(who provide it).

Making older people sell houses they don't need to fund care which they do need should be welcomed as socially responsible recycling.

I agree...and approve, the state should not be responsible for paying for long term care, if you have money or assets they should be used....I can see in years to come people will try to hide what they have in order to preserve for future generations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Weren't there talks of some kind of insurance thing when you retire? Eg pay a £10k lump sum to the government and then they'll cover you old age?

Care homes are grim places though, I hope I go before I get like that but hopefully that's a few years off yet!

Liebour announced some kind of NCS (national care service) intention. Didnt say how the sums would stack up though. I think they said they would introduce it when they could afford it (ie never) Just another one of liebours (unfunded) 'promises' they can bleat about when tory 'cuts' occur.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_114922

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20,000 a year doesn't strike me as that many considering how many people must be hitting "that age" each year and with all of the wealth tied up in their housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20,000 a year doesn't strike me as that many considering how many people must be hitting "that age" each year and with all of the wealth tied up in their housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20,000 a year doesn't strike me as that many considering how many people must be hitting "that age" each year and with all of the wealth tied up in their housing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree...and approve, the state should not be responsible for paying for long term care, if you have money or assets they should be used....I can see in years to come people will try to hide what they have in order to preserve for future generations.

People who want to inherit can look after their family members instead of warehousing them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who want to inherit can look after their family members instead of warehousing them.

Most decent kids I've thought would want to do that, to care for their parents for as long as they can...sometimes though there is no other option when specialist medical care is required for others to take over. In many cases long term care does not always mean going into a home, it may mean someone coming around to the elderly persons home to help with general duties, give drugs and feed them, all of this has to be paid for, if the elderly can afford it they should pay for it not the nhs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cant get this point home to my aging parents. still insisting on holding the deeds as their health fails. they need to transfer them to me and rent the property off me. old habits and all that. still, i dont care. im not expecting any kind of inheritance. never had one in my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cant get this point home to my aging parents. still insisting on holding the deeds as their health fails. they need to transfer them to me and rent the property off me. old habits and all that. still, i dont care. im not expecting any kind of inheritance. never had one in my life.

Same here fred, never inherited anything and don't ever expect to inherit anything. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 20,000 @ £30,000 fully funded would be a little over £1/2 billion p.a. if my maths are right.

An absolutely trifling sum relatively.

The rich don't care, the poor don't pay it, so that just leaves those on modest income who have saved and/or managed to buy their own home and pay the mtge off during their lifetime.

Perhaps if some of the money that has been appropriated by landowners/developers/bankster/lawyers and so on during the last 10 years had been redirected away from house prices we wouldn't have this problem at all.

The argument about numbers rising in the future whilst no doubt true seems to ignore the fact that many people are now fitter and healthier for longer, which ought to suggest healthcare costs for the elderly are to an extent simply shifted further out along their lifespan.

But in general, I think taxes have been too low and house prices too high as a result due to the out of contro monster that we are constantly told is 'inevitable' namely globalisation. We should put a stop to all that nonsense and have properly funded social care systems and pensions rather than giving all our wealth to banksters and Chindians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 261 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.