Originally Posted by nomadking

So they save £48,000, so what? They're not able to spend it on anything. eg World Cruise, Ferrari, etc. They "saved" for their retirement, and on existing rules, it would be spent on their retirement. What's the issue?
Just look at all the media articles. The complaints are about houses having to be sold. This new solution doesn't change that. For the majority, the majority of their wealth is tied up in their house. They don't have £86,000 under the mattress.

---------- Post added at 20:07 ---------- Previous post was at 20:04 ----------


As soon as somebody had to go into care, their estate would be quickly transferred, and therefore out of reach to pay for care.

Originally Posted by Hugh

That's not how it works - that would be regarded as "Deprivation of Capital", and the DWP would prosecute.

Originally Posted by nomadking

As it was in reference to the notion that any costs are levied against post-death assets, would that still apply? The bill for the costs has yet to be determined and issued.

My central point remains, why on earth can't the empty houses be sold. Little point in waiting until after death for that to go ahead anyway. There is no justification for hanging onto a house that is going to sold at some point. If it's not going to be sold, and not lived in by the owner(s), what does it achieve?

Link
So who is expected to pay the £560/week gap? If she had opted for a even more expensive care home, would that count as "deprivation of capital" as assessed by the local councils.

Right on cue, BBC News(BBC1) report about somebody complaining about potentially having to sell their parents home.

Don't see how any more money for the NHS is going to achieve anything. There aren't more staff available to employ. Same wage bill.