Walker killed by cattle....

[dumper]

19 hours ago, john87 said:

Hi there, I know nothing  of your situation, but any property in your dads name needs transferring a bit quick. Never mind inheritance tax, that is the least of your worries. If your dad ends up needing to receive any sort of care or to be in a care home, social services will take the LOT to pay for his care.. The fact you live there means nothing, you will be evicted and the property sold..

 

john..

Wrong !

[dumper]

Both my parent are in care, I tried very hard to care for them but couldn’t it’s a upsetting subject but I would advise you don’t give advice on care or finances that you have no knowledge of,

not getting into this any deeper , but I fail to recognise your view of social services

[john87]

1 hour ago, dumper said:

Both my parent are in care, I tried very hard to care for them but couldn’t it’s a upsetting subject but I would advise you don’t give advice on care or finances that you have no knowledge of,

not getting into this any deeper , but I fail to recognise your view of social services

I know it is upsetting, of course it is, but if there is ONE thing i know about it is the care system. My mother is in a care home and, as it happens, i also work for the NHS.

 

Fact of the matter is, unless you are placed in a care home for VERY strictly limited health needs and qualify for CHC [google "the Coughlan case"] you WILL be means tested, and if you have assets of more that £23,000 you WILL, be paying the full cost yourself..

 

Read this, the most important case concerning CHC...

The Coughlan Case For Care Funding

CARETOBEDIFFERENT.CO.UK

---

The Coughlan Case is a landmark legal case whereby Pamela Coughlin challenged the NHS and won Care Funding - Read...

 

In ANY other case, INCLUDING if you are forcibly detained in a care home by means of DoLs, [by virtue of operation of the mental capacity act] you will be means tested and if you have assets of more than £23,000 paying yourself.

 

HOWEVER.

 

If you are forcibly detained there by means of a sectioning order, [by virtue of operation of the mental health act] you will be entitled to S117 aftercare which is free, and therefore you will not have to pay at all..

 

Suggest all those that think they know best read this [carefully]

WWW.AGEUK.ORG.UK

---

 

 

Trust me, the local authority will grab every penny they can. A persons home is included in their assets too, and in fact, even if a child of the person concerned actually lives in their parents house, unless they are under the age of 18, or are disabled, or are a partner or relative aged over 60 of the parent, the house will still be sold from under them to pay for the care costs UNLESS, the person in care qualifies for CHC, [and this is reviewed from time to time] OR they are sectioned under the MHA and therefore S117 applies..

 

A lot of people might not like this, but that is the way it is.

 

Anyone care to disagree???? Go find evidence that i am wrong.. Good luck with that one..

 

When it comes to transferring ownership of a house to avoid having it taken as part of "assets" people will tell you a lot of rubbish about "It needs to have been done more than 6 years ago" This is a lot of nonsense.. There IS no time limit, the deciding factor is whether, at the time the property was transferred, the person concerned knew or suspected that they would need care. It is irrellevant if this was last week or 20 years ago. If the court decides the transfer was with the intention of avoiding care costs the court will simply reverse it. [Same applies if it were not a proper transfer, [transferred but remained living there etc]

 

john..

Edited February 18, 2022 by john87

[donnk]

46 minutes ago, john87 said:

I know it is upsetting, of course it is, but if there is ONE thing i know about it is the care system. My mother is in a care home and, as it happens, i also work for the NHS.

 

Fact of the matter is, unless you are placed in a care home for VERY strictly limited health needs and qualify for CHC [google "the Coughlan case"] you WILL be means tested, and if you have assets of more that £23,000 you WILL, be paying the full cost yourself..

 

Read this, the most important case concerning CHC...

The Coughlan Case For Care Funding

CARETOBEDIFFERENT.CO.UK

---

The Coughlan Case is a landmark legal case whereby Pamela Coughlin challenged the NHS and won Care Funding - Read...

 

In ANY other case, INCLUDING if you are forcibly detained in a care home by means of DoLs, [by virtue of operation of the mental capacity act] you will be means tested and if you have assets of more than £23,000 paying yourself.

 

HOWEVER.

 

If you are forcibly detained there by means of a sectioning order, [by virtue of operation of the mental health act] you will be entitled to S117 aftercare which is free, and therefore you will not have to pay at all..

 

Suggest all those that think they know best read this [carefully]

WWW.AGEUK.ORG.UK

---

 

 

Trust me, the local authority will grab every penny they can. A persons home is included in their assets too, and in fact, even if a child of the person concerned actually lives in their parents house, unless they are under the age of 18, or are disabled, or are a partner or relative aged over 60 of the parent, the house will still be sold from under them to pay for the care costs UNLESS, the person in care qualifies for CHC, [and this is reviewed from time to time] OR they are sectioned under the MHA and therefore S117 applies..

 

A lot of people might not like this, but that is the way it is.

 

Anyone care to disagree???? Go find evidence that i am wrong.. Good luck with that one..

 

When it comes to transferring ownership of a house to avoid having it taken as part of "assets" people will tell you a lot of rubbish about "It needs to have been done more than 6 years ago" This is a lot of nonsense.. There IS no time limit, the deciding factor is whether, at the time the property was transferred, the person concerned knew or suspected that they would need care. It is irrellevant if this was last week or 20 years ago. If the court decides the transfer was with the intention of avoiding care costs the court will simply reverse it. [Same applies if it were not a proper transfer, [transferred but remained living there etc]

 

john..

 

sell it, cant reverse that.

 

Just goes to show do the right thing, save buy your own home and you'll pay through the nose.

 

Be a benefits scrounger your whole life, pay nothing and get the same care for free.

 

Which of these is a labour supporter..

 

 

 

 

[john87]

3 minutes ago, donnk said:

 

sell it, cant reverse that.

 

Just goes to show do the right thing, save buy your own home and you'll pay through the nose.

 

Be a benefits scrounger your whole life, pay nothing and get the same care for free.

 

Which of these is a labour supporter..

 

 

 

 

If you sold it to a third party, then then person needing the care would be treated as if they still had the asset. How this would work in practice i have no idea, as they could not be charged if they did not have the money..

 

Nobody has the RIGHT to NHS care either, you cannot force the NHS to help you. You DO have a right to care from the local authority though following and assessment under the care act, but by law the LA cannot provide health care..

 

With regards to the political bit, i does make me laugh when i talk to people that think they are "a cut above" shall we say, that cannot see that by voting tory, they are voting to lose everything in old age. It is like turkeys voting for christmas.

 

Fact remains that the local authorities have defrauded hundreds of thousands of old people and so far as i know are still paying compensation now..

 

john..

[breffni]

On 13/02/2022 at 21:22, peds said:

Back in the Alps (my home for 15 years) I'd not think twice about strolling through a field of cows, public footpaths cross them like spiderwebs. I'd often go over and chat to them, see if I could get a tune out of their little bells. Friendly fellows, despite the massive horns. Sometimes I'd sit down among them and crack open my flask of tea.

 

Here in Ireland, I'd not go near the f*ckers. Absolutely mental, the lot of them. They'd eat you for breakfast.

The continental breeds most farmers want now are highly strung bastards. My brother-in-law breeds limousins, mad compared to the angus and shorthorns we had. 

[woody paul]

12 minutes ago, breffni said:

The continental breeds most farmers want now are highly strung bastards. My brother-in-law breeds limousins, mad compared to the angus and shorthorns we had. 

Saw a Toyota hilux that had been in a field with some Charolais youngest not a straight panel on it, and driver was as white as they where. 

[dumper]

I believe no one has a right to an inheritance,my parents have worked all there lives to buy there home, now in there fading years that money can be put to good use helping to keep them comfortable, l am proud that now it is my turn to look after my parents as they looked after me and I would not be happy leaving the state to do this job, isn’t this what families do?

sorry for the derail 

[difflock]

1 hour ago, donnk said:

 

sell it, cant reverse that.

 

Just goes to show do the right thing, save buy your own home and you'll pay through the nose.

 

Be a benefits scrounger your whole life, pay nothing and get the same care for free.

 

Which of these is a labour supporter..

 

 

 

 

This deeply distresses me.

Those who are prudent and save money to provide a better life for their children and grandchildren, all too often see these funds stolen by the Government to effectively pay for or subsidize the care of those who had the same type of jobs or earning potential, but "lived it large" during their working lives. 

This is simply plainly downright wrong.

What ever happened to equality and everybody being treated the same.

Marcus

[Richard 1234]

2 hours ago, john87 said:

I know it is upsetting, of course it is, but if there is ONE thing i know about it is the care system. My mother is in a care home and, as it happens, i also work for the NHS.

 

Fact of the matter is, unless you are placed in a care home for VERY strictly limited health needs and qualify for CHC [google "the Coughlan case"] you WILL be means tested, and if you have assets of more that £23,000 you WILL, be paying the full cost yourself..

 

Read this, the most important case concerning CHC...

The Coughlan Case For Care Funding

CARETOBEDIFFERENT.CO.UK

---

The Coughlan Case is a landmark legal case whereby Pamela Coughlin challenged the NHS and won Care Funding - Read...

 

In ANY other case, INCLUDING if you are forcibly detained in a care home by means of DoLs, [by virtue of operation of the mental capacity act] you will be means tested and if you have assets of more than £23,000 paying yourself.

 

HOWEVER.

 

If you are forcibly detained there by means of a sectioning order, [by virtue of operation of the mental health act] you will be entitled to S117 aftercare which is free, and therefore you will not have to pay at all..

 

Suggest all those that think they know best read this [carefully]

WWW.AGEUK.ORG.UK

---

 

 

Trust me, the local authority will grab every penny they can. A persons home is included in their assets too, and in fact, even if a child of the person concerned actually lives in their parents house, unless they are under the age of 18, or are disabled, or are a partner or relative aged over 60 of the parent, the house will still be sold from under them to pay for the care costs UNLESS, the person in care qualifies for CHC, [and this is reviewed from time to time] OR they are sectioned under the MHA and therefore S117 applies..

 

A lot of people might not like this, but that is the way it is.

 

Anyone care to disagree???? Go find evidence that i am wrong.. Good luck with that one..

 

When it comes to transferring ownership of a house to avoid having it taken as part of "assets" people will tell you a lot of rubbish about "It needs to have been done more than 6 years ago" This is a lot of nonsense.. There IS no time limit, the deciding factor is whether, at the time the property was transferred, the person concerned knew or suspected that they would need care. It is irrellevant if this was last week or 20 years ago. If the court decides the transfer was with the intention of avoiding care costs the court will simply reverse it. [Same applies if it were not a proper transfer, [transferred but remained living there etc]

 

john..

Section 117 is what I’m aiming to get dad on if they ever let him out of section 3. And the ongoing care cost is the main reason to try and make sure they don’t wriggle out of it. That will save a massive bill if care home time comes.