Father in Secure Nursing Home.

[ValWoodley]

My father has advanced dementia and has been put in a secure nursing home as he attacked 3 people when he was in hospital causing injury to 2.
He is 89 and I am 63 and a pensioner.
I have a reasonable occupational pension and a 4 bedroom detached house.
He was assessed yesterday and has been given full NHS funding.
The person did however say I should sell his house as he may not qualify for NHS funding in 12 months time to which I replied he does not have a house or much in savings.
She then said that I should downsize my house as the house I own is reasonably expensive for the area and she said 1 person does not need 4 bedrooms. She knew the road and the houses.
She then said Social Services will pay a certain amount but I will be liable for a top up of £130 per week at present and the home he is in is the only suitable home in the area.
I have got some ISA's coming up next month but I really want to invest the money for another 5 years as I am in good health and have no immediate need for the money.
As far as I am concerned I have earned that money to enjoy later in my retirement.
Surely I can not be made liable for the fact my father is a danger to the public.

Val

[ValWoodley]

Thank you all for your advice.
I also spoke to the nurse at the home and other relatives.
The nurse said sadly it is very unlikely my father will be alive next year and dementia reearch would have to move extremely fast to get my father into a state where he would not qualify for full NHS fonding so she said if it was her in my position she would carry on spending / saving as normal and she said I should have a few short holiday breaks in view of the stress.
She also said nobody on annual assessment has ever lost their NHS funding at that home.
I also spoke to 2 of the other relatives and they has been told they would have to downsize their house etc but that is not true.
They said several complaints have been made about the social workers etc giving wrong advice but all they get back is a letter saying the matter will be investigated and dealt with and nothing else appears to happen.
At this stage I do not think it is worth getting legal advice in view of the above and what everybody in this thread has said.

Many thanks


Val

[boxtops]

There have been other threads on here about this recently, where people have been told they must sell their homes - but it appears that it's not the case.

[Kiki-frog]

Val, I've only just found this thread. I am so shocked at what you've been told - callous, insensitive and inaccurate. My late father had dementia, so I understand what you've been going through. At least you seem to have got some sensible advice from the nursing staff and relatives. All the best to you and to your dad.

[woofgang]

It is absolutely not the case. If anyone involved feels strong enough, maybe this is a subject for a program like Watchdog to take on?

[RATTER15]

This appears to be happening a lot, it is cruel wrong, like these folk haven't enough to worry about without playing games of emotional blackmail!!

I agree woofgang, a good case for watchdog.

[HannaJayne52]

I really think a clear set of rules need to be written in relation to Care Home Fees.
My mother is 85 and I am 60 and widowed.
I inherited half of my parents bungalow when my father passed away and I now have my own house which is up for sale.
Under present rules as I am a joint owner of my mothers bungalow the council could not sell the bungalow if my mother has to go into care.
My mothers problems are more physical and there is no sign of dementia and it does make sense to sell my house as we do not need separate homes.
When I spoke to Age Concern they pointed out I would be OK under the rules as they are now but they are being reviewed.
The main problem is my mother may not need care for another 15 years if ever and I will then be 75.
I would really like to be assured that as I am acting under the rules as of now then I could never be forced to sell the bungalow even if the rules are changed in future situations.

Hanna

[woofgang]

The rules are clear, just that ss want them to be a well kept secret. The council cannot force you to sell what belongs to you, the only catch with any property is if it is given away within a certain timescale with the intent to reduce someone's resources and thus force ss to fund them. This is evidently not so in your case. What ss might do is put a lien on your mums share of the property to claim monies when the house is sold but they cannot make you sell it and I can't see how they ever could if it was left to you.

[lcg]

what a cheek! tell her to mind her own and you are not liable financially in any way. disgusting practice - i would complain vociferously if i were in your position. to the manager and pals service who help patients and relatives recieving care from the trust where you are. she was bang out of order.

[factor-fiction]

Hi ValWoodley- I think a piece of information that may help clarify this is whether he had a house at some stage in the last few years and sold/passed it on to you or his family.

[HannaJayne52]

Hi woofgang

I agree the rules are clear in my situation.
At present the council can not make me sell the property if my mother has to go into care or even put a charge on the property as long as I stay in it till after my mother passes away.
I think the advisor was right in saying there is always the posibility of a law change in the future and I can only hope I would not be affected by it if it happens as I have taken my decision based on the present rules.
Putting a charge on the property is a possibility but I may want to sell the bungalow and move into another type of property.
Yes it is a bungalow but it is not warden controlled for example.
A problem could have happened with one of my friends.
She was sharing a bungalow with her mother as a joint owner and it was subjected to a compulsary purchase order.
It was 4 bedroom and she only really neaded 2 bedrooms.
She thought that she would have to get a 4 bedroom bungalow not to lose any money as some of the money would have been taken by the council if she went for a smaller property as her mother was in care.
Fortunately she was given nearly 3 years notice to find another property and sadly her mother passed away 6 months later.
She was however free to purchase the smaller bungalow and she retained the surplus money.


Hanna

[woofgang]

But it's not the law as such, it's council rules. The law says what councils can do but they make their rules within that and those rules do not have the force of law. Eg the law says that councils can only take into account the resources of their patient and not those of spouse or other relis which includes any part of property they may own with the patient. Councils will try and wriggle within the law. I doubt very much that the law will ever change to say that councils can take something not owned by the patient for payment.

[woofgang]

Not sure of the relevance of its being a bungalow or warden supported, although warden supported properties that are not council rentals are usually leasehold.

[murraymints]

all of the above...although I chose to keep my fil at home 'till he passed away..as I do not think he would have lasted the four years he did in a strange and hostile (to him) environment....Our home had to be "secure" to prevent him from wandering out ...jolly hard work..but so glad I did it...

[HannaJayne52]

Hi woofgang

I think you are right in saying that councils would never be able to take into account property not owned by the patient.
A little while ago there was talk of charging for home social services and putting a charge on the house even if there was both a husband and wife in occupation and joint owners and taking the money when the second person departs so I supose going by this it would be possible if a property is owned by a parent and child.
Another thing they may do is say that money can only be inherited by another person after both the husband and wife dies.
This could be difficult however if there have been divorces / re marriages etc.

Hanna

[HannaJayne52]

woofgang

With regard to warden supported I did not know anything about these properties.
I just picked this as an example.

Hanna

[woofgang]

yes they can put a charge against the part of the property owned by the patient now so no change needed there...the inheritance of money thing, there you have me confused, if the patient has money then the patient can be charged now. If the patient doesn't have money then the person who does have the money cannot be charged for the patient's care unless the money was passed to the person by the patient in an attempt to avoid paying fees and this can be proved.

[factor-fiction]

Sadly although this is an important topic the original post and many of the threads on it are from the same user using different user names and I very much doubt that the scenario is a genuine.