So it's National Insurance then

[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]

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.

[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.

[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]

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

[Re-sign Carl Dale]

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

Now we’re taking!!

Depending on the objectives and estate size, I would either use a Life Interest Trust or a Discretionary Trust / IIP (to still allow any residence Nil Rate Band to be claimed).

For the Life Interest route there’s no GROB as it’s all deemed to be in the estate of the surviving partner - and it’s effectively ignored for IHT on first death.

For a Discretionary Trust, as there’s no absolute entitlement then there’s no Gift With Reservation implications anyway.

[Feedback]

Now we’re taking!!

Depending on the objectives and estate size, I would either use a Life Interest Trust or a Discretionary Trust / IIP (to still allow any residence Nil Rate Band to be claimed).

For the Life Interest route there’s no GROB as it’s all deemed to be in the estate of the surviving partner - and it’s effectively ignored for IHT on first death.

For a Discretionary Trust, as there’s no absolute entitlement then there’s no Gift With Reservation implications anyway.

If there's no market rent paid then the Care Act 2014 results in the life tenant bearing the cost of care, not the surviving spouse.

Use Trusts carefully, as they don't often protect you in the way intended.

[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

[Joe Gillis]

The richest in the UK made huge amounts of money on the back of the pandemic, why not tax them?

Answer - because the tories have been bought out by them and the average person from the UK decides its immigrants fault instead of the mega rich (thanks to the daily mail and the sun)

What a load of bollocks, knee jerk tory bashing will never die in Wales

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

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

I am talking about care at home , using the brokerage system

The council put out a alert that a care package is up for grabs and that goes to the councils list of approved providers who make the bid if they have capacity

From my experience I am amazed how any of these care companies get clearance to provide a service as they are short of staff , those that are still there are over worked and a lot of the carers are hopeless .

If the NHS or councils employed care staff and paid them a decent wage it would be a start

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

What a load of bollocks, knee jerk tory bashing will never die in Wales

It's not just a welsh thing

Plenty of English and Scottish people don't like them

[Rjk]

What a load of bollocks, knee jerk tory bashing will never die in Wales

good

[Tuerto]

I am talking about care at home , using the brokerage system

The council put out a alert that a care package is up for grabs and that goes to the councils list of approved providers who make the bid if they have capacity

From my experience I am amazed how any of these care companies get clearance to provide a service as they are short of staff , those that are still there are over worked and a lot of the carers are hopeless .

If the NHS or councils employed care staff and paid them a decent wage it would be a start

Spot on. Carers who work for an agency, aren't paid travelling time or gaps between calls. They could have their first call at 4pm, and their last at 10.30pm. But with only 6 or 7 half hour calls, maybe 4 hrs work, at £9 per hour, that's £37 and out for 6.5 hrs, plus wear and tear on the car. ****ing disgrace.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Spot on. Carers who work for an agency, aren't paid travelling time or gaps between calls. They could have their first call at 4pm, and their last at 10.30pm. But with only 6 or 7 half hour calls, maybe 4 hrs work, at £9 per hour, that's £37 and out for 6.5 hrs, plus wear and tear on the car. ****ing disgrace.

It's shocking . If we need extra care at the weekend I pay the carers 15 quid an hour . They don't tell the care agency , nor do I and they make good money to see them through .

I am not prepared to pay a care company already making a killing extra on top .

They phone me a few days before a bank holiday and say do you want cover ? I say no because if I say yes the care company charges the council double time yet only pays the carer 9 quid !

So I just pay the carers direct and everyone's happy . We get carers she likes , the care company don't screw the council and don't make money by not passing on double time to the carers .

These care companies have glossy websites and brochures but they are screwing their staff into the ground and screwing the councils and the vulnerable

[IanD]

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.

It was too late to go down the Trust route. I did consider it (after a conversation with a fellow Bluebird in the Canton!). No way mum would change her will. Trusts are very much long term and, as you say, take control away from the eventual beneficiaries. I'm sure I read somewhere that a Trust, set up shortly before someone dies, could be seen as tax evasion by HMRC. Plus the issue of what happens to the Trust assets if the beneficiaries pre-decease the surviving parent. Tricky.

[Eric the Half a Bee]

I am talking about care at home , using the brokerage system

The council put out a alert that a care package is up for grabs and that goes to the councils list of approved providers who make the bid if they have capacity

From my experience I am amazed how any of these care companies get clearance to provide a service as they are short of staff , those that are still there are over worked and a lot of the carers are hopeless .

If the NHS or councils employed care staff and paid them a decent wage it would be a start

A young lady near me has just joined my choir. She's in her early 20s and is a carer in a home somewhere around Ponty. She gets her working hours for the following week a few days before the start of that week. She can request not to work certain times but if she's needed, then tough. £9 an hour, even if it's a night shift. Her old car recently failed an MOT and, without having any money to fall back on, has had to buy a second hand car on finance. Without a car she couldn't work. She is renting a house near me and barely has any money left after bills have been paid. She lives on her own.

It's tough.

[Feedback]

It was too late to go down the Trust route. I did consider it (after a conversation with a fellow Bluebird in the Canton!). No way mum would change her will. Trusts are very much long term and, as you say, take control away from the eventual beneficiaries. I'm sure I read somewhere that a Trust, set up shortly before someone dies, could be seen as tax evasion by HMRC. Plus the issue of what happens to the Trust assets if the beneficiaries pre-decease the surviving parent. Tricky.

The answer is it depends on the trust and what its intended purpose was for.

Trusts can be set up legitimately, then settlors die of natural causes. HMRC wouldn't automatically assume the purpose of the trust was to avoid tax if the death of the settlor was not a predictable event at settlement.

Setting up a trust on your deathbed would see HMRC ignore the trust.

However for the purpose of this thread s102 Care Act 2014 is relevant, and places the cost burden on the life tenant of the trust.

Apropos of your final point, most trusts have provisions for either new beneficiaries or the termination of the trust and who are absolutely entitled to the assets.

[Tuerto]

It's shocking . If we need extra care at the weekend I pay the carers 15 quid an hour . They don't tell the care agency , nor do I and they make good money to see them through .

I am not prepared to pay a care company already making a killing extra on top .

They phone me a few days before a bank holiday and say do you want cover ? I say no because if I say yes the care company charges the council double time yet only pays the carer 9 quid !

So I just pay the carers direct and everyone's happy . We get carers she likes , the care company don't screw the council and don't make money by not passing on double time to the carers .

These care companies have glossy websites and brochures but they are screwing their staff into the ground and screwing the councils and the vulnerable

Absolutely agree. The Domiciliary care industry has a massive turnover of staff, and for obvious reasons, it isn't seen as a career industry. The job some of these carers do (if done correctly) can save the NHS a large sum of money by keeping service users (horrible phrase) in their own homes and out of hospital, because of something shit, like pressure sores. Very important job.

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

A young lady near me has just joined my choir. She's in her early 20s and is a carer in a home somewhere around Ponty. She gets her working hours for the following week a few days before the start of that week. She can request not to work certain times but if she's needed, then tough. £9 an hour, even if it's a night shift. Her old car recently failed an MOT and, without having any money to fall back on, has had to buy a second hand car on finance. Without a car she couldn't work. She is renting a house near me and barely has any money left after bills have been paid. She lives on her own.

It's tough.

It's disgraceful

Most of the carers here come from the Bridgend valleys

A lot of the carers are single mums or living with their parents

9 quid an hour whilst the care company bosses go on cruises 3 times a year

Making money out of the vulnerable

[Nobody's Rep]

It's shocking . If we need extra care at the weekend I pay the carers 15 quid an hour . They don't tell the care agency , nor do I and they make good money to see them through .

I am not prepared to pay a care company already making a killing extra on top .

They phone me a few days before a bank holiday and say do you want cover ? I say no because if I say yes the care company charges the council double time yet only pays the carer 9 quid !

So I just pay the carers direct and everyone's happy . We get carers she likes , the care company don't screw the council and don't make money by not passing on double time to the carers .

These care companies have glossy websites and brochures but they are screwing their staff into the ground and screwing the councils and the vulnerable

There are some huge generalisations in there as there some good private companies but others who do employ poor employment practice

Have you talked to the LA about direct payments where you can control who you employ to provide care?

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Absolutely agree. The Domiciliary care industry has a massive turnover of staff, and for obvious reasons, it isn't seen as a career industry. The job some of these carers do (if done correctly) can save the NHS a large sum of money by keeping service users (horrible phrase) in their own homes and out of hospital, because of something shit, like pressure sores. Very important job.

Too right , there are some very good carers out there amongst the knackered and burnt out

If they were paid better , just a few quid extra an hour , it's so obvious everybody would be happier

But people don't want to pay for it .....until they need it for their loved ones then its a different story

So we have a social care system where vulnerable people are looked after by a tired and disillusioned workforce who survive on terrible wages whilst the private companies screw everyone over

Bring it back under Local Authority and NHS control

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

There are some huge generalisations in there as there some good private companies but others who do employ poor employment practice

Have you talked to the LA about direct payments where you can control who you employ to provide care?

Judging by my experience , the experience of friends with elderly parents and chats with the staff of 4 care companies who have provided care for my family it's just the tip of the iceberg

All the ones we have been allocated pay the minimum wage

And there are lots of staff at breaking point

If you have experience of working in or dealing with care companies then that's your view but in the area I live there are lots of horror stories from the staff , and complaints about staff

It's not isolated

I mean when people with little experience of caring for vulnerable people set up a private company and pay their staff low wages ......right across the board ......the money wins everytime

[Tuerto]

Too right , there are some very good carers out there amongst the knackered and burnt out

If they were paid better , just a few quid extra an hour , it's so obvious everybody would be happier

But people don't want to pay for it .....until they need it for their loved ones then its a different story

So we have a social care system where vulnerable people are looked after by a tired and disillusioned workforce who survive on terrible wages whilst the private companies screw everyone over

Bring it back under Local Authority and NHS control