Dogtrousers
Kilometre nibbler
It certainly is. Been there, and don't envy you.trust me it's hard work finding a good one
It certainly is. Been there, and don't envy you.trust me it's hard work finding a good one
I gather there is another proviso as to whether the LA can use the house funds ...are there any under 18s , it may be under 16s, resident. They cannot make minors effectively homeless was the logic.
Feel free to correct me, pretty sure it used to be a condition in effect but may be wrong
I believe they put a charge on the house, so that funds revert to the council when it is sold.
So no one is made homeless and the house isn’t forcibly sold.
Care homes are expensive we are paying around 5k month for an elderly relative and trust me it's hard work finding a good one
My wife has been through this, it's an awful process. We're making damn sure we've got enough cash to make our own choices when that day comes, and protect our daughter from it as much as possible.
We had about 4 -6 weeks notification that we needed to find one .
Have you checked the life expectancy of people who actually live in care homes? As soon as you need one, you're on the slippery slope. Have a look at section 4 / Figure 2.
There is a balance between asset protection and quality of life. If a relative goes on about Asset Protection send them to a care home for a month's respite. They'll be able to judge the issue for themselves if AP is the way they want to go.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...pectancyincarehomesenglandandwales/2021to2022
I agree that the usual life expectancy of some one in a care home is likely to be fairly short. But even 2 years could cost £150k.
The “nightmare” scenario for someone is they live for 8-10 years and run up a £700k bill whilst having a very poor quality of life. But that is fairly rare.
I get annoyed when I hear people saying they should have a 'right' to pass on their wealth to their children, even if they need care later in life.
Why would we expect taxpayers to pay for us to be looked after if we have assets?
Take politics to the appropriate place, i.e not on cyclechat
I get annoyed when I hear people saying they should have a 'right' to pass on their wealth to their children, even if they need care later in life.
Why would we expect taxpayers to pay for us to be looked after if we have assets?
Because those people have worked hard for their assets and their children may have looked after them for years. I think its very unfair that they have to lose their homes when someone who has never worked gets it all for free. How's that fair? the person with the house will most likely have worked and paid a fair bit in tax and NI.