So it's National Insurance then

[LeningradCowboy]

We went through years of austerity where so many things were cut. Is this latest announcement proof that there is no more left to cut, even that austerity was the wrong course of action?

No, it's proof that the NHS is a bottomless money pit.

[life on mars]

No, it's proof that the NHS is a bottomless money pit.

There lies the issue I feel we should be braver and perhaps set out some new standards of NHS treatment so the money flows to the real issue like Social Care , Cancer etc , we need to look at A&E abuse ie weekend drunks that costs both treatment time and re, emergencies , those soft treatments like ear syringing , skin tag removals that can be treated by delivered over the counter remedies , thankfully Viagra is now being purchased , you have self responsibilities of ones health such as weight gain form poor eating habits , smoking , lack of exercise ,drinking drug abuse , some of which does is genuinely and deserved help , but not everyone .

[Rjk]

No, it's proof that the NHS is a bottomless money pit.

https://youtu.be/x0MBrfqwdEg

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

surely the council can state in the tender what the terms of engagement must be...the council hold all the aces, but they put out to tender for the lowest cost bidder.

You think that the councils are in a position to pay good money for care ?

It's a cut throat dog eat dog bidding process and the council award contracts to the cheapest bidder

Home Instead, Right at-home are expensive and don't figure very much with local authority care

Which is why people who can afford it go for them and ordinary folk get a dreadful service

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

No, it's proof that the NHS is a bottomless money pit.

What about the cuts to non NHS services ? .......roads , libraries , public transport grants ?

[Feedback]

You think that the councils are in a position to pay good money for care ?

It's a cut throat dog eat dog bidding process and the council award contracts to the cheapest bidder

Home Instead, Right at-home are expensive and don't figure very much with local authority care

Which is why people who can afford it go for them and ordinary folk get a dreadful service

So its not the service providers at fault its the council ergo the taxpayer who hasn't given enough budget.

Perhapsa few less duvet days and other such follys suxh as flexi hours could help increase the councils social care budget.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Central government allocates to local councils

They ain't allocating enough money is the short of it

[life on mars]

Central government allocates to local councils

They ain't allocating enough money is the short of it

They also raise revenues via Council Tax .

Nothing stopping Labour in Wales raising its own funding model if it feels UK one is not the right .

Wales , Scotland , NI do get more per head that England

[IanD]

If your mother and father are still alive but your mother is in a care home isn't the assumption made that only your mother's share of the house (50% assuming tenants in common) is taken into consideration? Furthermore would your father be required to sell the house he lives if your mother dies before him?

Sorry for the daft question but I am trying to get to grips with my understanding of the past and present situation because things must have changed since I was involved in this issue for my parents.

Mum passed away October 2019. At that point, dad became sole house owner. He went into care February 2019. His inheritance and savings (to pay for care) would have run out (£23250 allowed for in England) roughly March this year. So, empty house had to be sold (completed January this year) to pay around £1100 a week for food accomodation and nursing. In any calculations for assets, a house is divvied up 50/50 between spouses. Mum was cared for at home and she paid the maximum of £90 a week which was means tested (in Cardiff). Not sure if we would have had to go down the differed option on the house to pay for mum's residential care if dad had still been living in the house and Mum reached a point of having £50k in assets. I do vaguely remember asking the question 2 years ago and seem to recall that "no" house cannot be sold to pay for care if occupied by a spouses. Best seek specialist advice on that one if it applies. As it was, Mum died at home.

[Re-sign Carl Dale]

Mum passed away October 2019. At that point, dad became sole house owner. He went into care February 2019. His inheritance and savings (to pay for care) would have run out (£23250 allowed for in England) roughly March this year. So, empty house had to be sold (completed January this year) to pay around £1100 a week for food accomodation and nursing. In any calculations for assets, a house is divvied up 50/50 between spouses. Mum was cared for at home and she paid the maximum of £90 a week which was means tested (in Cardiff). Not sure if we would have had to go down the differed option on the house to pay for mum's residential care if dad had still been living in the house and Mum reached a point of having £50k in assets. I do vaguely remember asking the question 2 years ago and seem to recall that "no" house cannot be sold to pay for care if occupied by a spouses. Best seek specialist advice on that one if it applies. As it was, Mum died at home.

The advice two years ago was correct - the LA can't force the house to be sold if there's a spouse living there, and the whole house value is disregarded. If your dad was still living there and mum went down to £50,000 in other assets they would still have ignored the house completely.

Best planning for those looking to safeguard the property is for spouses NOT to leave the house directly to each other, it leaves the surving partner with 100% of the house which effectively is counted against them in any care assessments.

[Wash DC Blue]

say that with a straight face

I don’t understand what you are getting at.
Am I missing a joke?

[Feedback]

I don’t understand what you are getting at.
Am I missing a joke?

they may have paid in, but they have not paid in enough. when current pensioners started work, life expectancy ergo state pension costs were much less than they are today. Typically you could expect to live for say 5-10 years after retirement. Your NICS/pension contributions were costed accordingly. However, as people are living much longer than the 5-10 years, what they have paid in is not enough.

[IanD]

The advice two years ago was correct - the LA can't force the house to be sold if there's a spouse living there, and the whole house value is disregarded. If your dad was still living there and mum went down to £50,000 in other assets they would still have ignored the house completely.

Best planning for those looking to safeguard the property is for spouses NOT to leave the house directly to each other, it leaves the surving partner with 100% of the house which effectively is counted against them in any care assessments.

Thanks for clarifying the first point and yes to the last point. But....family politics and parental inertia/illness meant that a 2015 will applied when mum died and, although expensive in terms of care costs for dad, better to keep it simple. Old people can't understand change so even something as simple as replacing lightbulbs with LEDs was a nightmare. Let alone rewriting a will, in mum's case. She would have refused to make any changes.

[Vindec]

Best planning for those looking to safeguard the property is for spouses NOT to leave the house directly to each other, it leaves the surving partner with 100% of the house which effectively is counted against them in any care assessments.

Thanks. I have found your advice very useful. However, I'm confused. You say the best plan is for spouses not to leave the house to each other. But isn't it a fact that 50% of the house is likely to be owned by a surviving spouse so it is logical for the remaining 50% to be left to the spouse.

Could there ever be a time when the surviving spouse is forced to sell the property in order to pay for the spouse's care costs or is your suggestion merely a way of ensuring the full value of the house is inherited by your children or whoever?

[IanD]

Thanks. I have found your advice very useful. However, I'm confused. You say the best plan is for spouses not to leave the house to each other. But isn't it a fact that 50% of the house is likely to be owned by a surviving spouse so it is logical for the remaining 50% to be left to the spouse.

Could there ever be a time when the surviving spouse is forced to sell the property in order to pay for the spouse's care costs or is your suggestion merely a way of ensuring the full value of the house is inherited by your children or whoever?

RSCD was suggesting a way round not losing a property to pay for care. Yes, it's logical (and easy to sort out) if a surviving spouse owns 100% of the property. If one partner dies, according to the terms of their will, children could inherit 50% in equal shares. Then it gets complicated. Even before the death of the surviving spouse, child A might want to sell, child B and C might want to live there. Exacerbated further if surviving spouse dies and only 2/3 children are executors of the will which may or may not entitle 3 (for example) children to the remaining 50%. 2 of the offspring can then decide the fate of the house. Depends on how the will is written. Houses have been known to be left empty (and who pays for maintenance?) whilst children wrangle over what to do with it. Family politics. One reason dad's house was sold. Keep it simple. No room for argument.
As for care costs. If the remaining spouse goes into care with children owning 50% of the property, I think, the property is protected but could be subject to deferred payment to pay for their care until the remaining spouses' assets decline to the minimum allowed. Easier to sell up IF part owners agree. RSCD ....is this correct?

[Re-sign Carl Dale]

RSCD was suggesting a way round not losing a property to pay for care. Yes, it's logical (and easy to sort out) if a surviving spouse owns 100% of the property. If one partner dies, according to the terms of their will, children could inherit 50% in equal shares. Then it gets complicated. Even before the death of the surviving spouse, child A might want to sell, child B and C might want to live there. Exacerbated further if surviving spouse dies and only 2/3 children are executors of the will which may or may not entitle 3 (for example) children to the remaining 50%. 2 of the offspring can then decide the fate of the house. Depends on how the will is written. Houses have been known to be left empty (and who pays for maintenance?) whilst children wrangle over what to do with it. Family politics. One reason dad's house was sold. Keep it simple. No room for argument.
As for care costs. If the remaining spouse goes into care with children owning 50% of the property, I think, the property is protected but could be subject to deferred payment to pay for their care until the remaining spouses' assets decline to the minimum allowed. Easier to sell up IF part owners agree. RSCD ....is this correct?

Yes - the last part is correct, in that the property is protected, although potentially a charge from the LA could be put against the surviving spouses' 50%

You are also right about it being a nightmare (plus other tax complications) for a house to be owned 50% by widow and the rest amongst the children. Aside from any issues about wanting to sell, if someone gets divorced, what was mum & dad's home would be part of the settlement!!!

More common would be to use a Trust - that's what we do for our clients. Simply put, when one partner dies, their half of the house goes in Trust for the children, however the condition is that the surviving spouse lives there (rent free) for the rest of their life. The children don't have any control / access until both parents die. This solves any tax issues, and it's not part of the estate of the children in the event of family breakups, bankruptcy etc.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Well there is in as much as LAs don't have a bottomless pit of money due to years of austerity.

The main push into private care has been in the last decade especially in domiciliary care and this was seen as a way of driving down the cost of the hourly rate of care to help balance the books

The main problem with private provision is that for every £1 they get given they try to spend only a proportion of it and keep some back for profit - that profit has become less and less hence why packages of care are being returned - this and the staffing crisis as people walk away post pandemic

There are really good private providers out there as there are bad voluntary or statutory providers

Its not as simple as one or other but there are over 1000 providers in social care in Wales alone which makes the market place a little bit complex to say the least

The expensive private providers don't tend to be on the local authority approved list , the ones that are cheaper are though .......so the council awards the contracts to those which come in with the lowest bids

And these companies pay very poor wages

[Nobody's Rep]

The expensive private providers don't tend to be on the local authority approved list , the ones that are cheaper are though .......so the council awards the contracts to those which come in with the lowest bids

And these companies pay very poor wages

Residential care for adults is very rarely tendered - they rely on finding spaces that are void in any given home - most residential homes have a variety of charges in their homes dependant on the source of the care package

Nursing home spaces are different to residential care as these are purchased by the health boards in the main

Domiciliary care is usually the area that gets tendered more often and this is done on bundles of hours rather than individuals to begin with.

So it's up to all providers to decide what they bid for and what they don't not about any pre determined council lists

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

They also raise revenues via Council Tax .

Nothing stopping Labour in Wales raising its own funding model if it feels UK one is not the right .

Wales , Scotland , NI do get more per head that England

That's because Wales, Scotland and NI have greater social needs per head of population than England

So you think Wales can fund social care through council tax ?

[Vindec]

RSCD was suggesting a way round not losing a property to pay for care. Yes, it's logical (and easy to sort out) if a surviving spouse owns 100% of the property. If one partner dies, according to the terms of their will, children could inherit 50% in equal shares. Then it gets complicated. Even before the death of the surviving spouse, child A might want to sell, child B and C might want to live there. Exacerbated further if surviving spouse dies and only 2/3 children are executors of the will which may or may not entitle 3 (for example) children to the remaining 50%. 2 of the offspring can then decide the fate of the house. Depends on how the will is written. Houses have been known to be left empty (and who pays for maintenance?) whilst children wrangle over what to do with it. Family politics. One reason dad's house was sold. Keep it simple. No room for argument.
As for care costs. If the remaining spouse goes into care with children owning 50% of the property, I think, the property is protected but could be subject to deferred payment to pay for their care until the remaining spouses' assets decline to the minimum allowed. Easier to sell up IF part owners agree. RSCD ....is this correct?

That sounds to me that leaving 50% of a house to anyone but a surviving spouse can cause multiple problems. However, Ian Dale was suggesting that a will should NOT specify that spouses should leave their 50% share of a property to their surviving spouse. It seems whatever you do the local authority will get their money from the property either through paying fees as they accumulate or by deferred payment. As far as I can tell the new arrangements won't change this.

[Re-sign Carl Dale]

That sounds to me that leaving 50% of a house to anyone but a surviving spouse can cause multiple problems. However, Ian Dale was suggesting that a will should NOT specify that spouses should leave their 50% share of a property to their surviving spouse. It seems whatever you do the local authority will get their money from the property either through paying fees as they accumulate or by deferred payment. As far as I can tell the new arrangements won't change this.

I would never leave my assets directly to my wife - there are a number of reasons, care costs being one, and the way that she's eying up the postman being another!!!! My will states that it's in Trust for the children, but she's got full use over everything I leave for the rest of her life. But when she dies, everything I have left (ie my half of house, investments etc) then goes back to our children (still in Trust, to protect from any issues they may have in the future). Incidently her Will says the same!!!!

This will ensure that whatever happens, the LA can - at worst - only take half the house (my half is in Trust, so doesn't belong to my wife) - in reality it's likely to better than half, however that's getting more complicated than on a messageboard!!!

[Feedback]

Thanks for clarifying the first point and yes to the last point. But....family politics and parental inertia/illness meant that a 2015 will applied when mum died and, although expensive in terms of care costs for dad, better to keep it simple. Old people can't understand change so even something as simple as replacing lightbulbs with LEDs was a nightmare. Let alone rewriting a will, in mum's case. She would have refused to make any changes.

No Deed of Variation?

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Central government allocates to local councils

They ain't allocating enough money is the short of it

Not quite. A few years ago the government slashed funding councils in return for local authorities being able to keep more business rates. Needless to say, if you're in a poorer area where you can't make as much through business rates, your council is worse off.

[Feedback]

Yes - the last part is correct, in that the property is protected, although potentially a charge from the LA could be put against the surviving spouses' 50%

You are also right about it being a nightmare (plus other tax complications) for a house to be owned 50% by widow and the rest amongst the children. Aside from any issues about wanting to sell, if someone gets divorced, what was mum & dad's home would be part of the settlement!!!

More common would be to use a Trust - that's what we do for our clients. Simply put, when one partner dies, their half of the house goes in Trust for the children, however the condition is that the surviving spouse lives there (rent free) for the rest of their life. The children don't have any control / access until both parents die. This solves any tax issues, and it's not part of the estate of the children in the event of family breakups, bankruptcy etc.

What about interest in possession or GROB for the surviving spouse?

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Not quite. A few years ago the government slashed funding councils in return for local authorities being able to keep more business rates. Needless to say, if you're in a poorer area where you can't make as much through business rates, your council is worse off.

Which is most of South Wales