Fair Deal changes might actually happen but...

But that is a choice. When I was a kid I remember my father's elderly Aunt going into a nursing home. She had a house and a small farm but no family. She went in and then the house and farm were sold to pay for her care. That is what assets are for. the house was renovated by the buyer and moved into soon afterwards and the circle life went on.

The aunt had a lot of nieces and nephews (old school, probably ~40 or more). So when she eventually passed away, there was a small inheritance for each. Under your view, you want a scenario where the State would have paid for all her care, the house and the house and property would have been left vacant for years, just so her nieces and nephews could have received a larger inheritance and no risk of delay in releasing it? I don't agree with that.

All I am putting forward here is an incentive to rent out the house. Simple as that. Nothing else

Who is going to sell my mother’s property ? She hasn’t the mental capacity to do so - and legally we can’t touch it. she is not unique in this situation.

If selling the property was an option we would have done it immediately, put all the proceeds in to her bank account and paid for the nursing home care directly from that account.

but in law this isn’t an option nor is it possible ….. do you understand that part?

Which has an exception where by you can be appointed as a ‘care representative’ by the circuit court in order to facilitate the Fair Deal arrangement . Nothing more nothing less.

so again - you are showing your lack of knowledge or understanding of the subject matter.

And I will repeat that my mother will pay for her nursing home care - it is not a case of the children trying to maximise the inheritance.

The 'Fair Deal' is one of the bigger social changes I think in my lifetime. Not that long ago that elderly parents, relatives and even neighbours were minded in the local community, at home or by dropping in etc. Less need for nursing home care as less medical intervention, people just died, maybe a bit before their time but often with less suffering perhaps. Most of the value of assets passed to the family.

What's happened since is a whole industry created around nursing homes and a transfer of wealth via the 'Fair Deal' from the family towards these often private enterprises.

And a shame to see houses left unused for years. I know of one vacant for 8 years.

Oke dokey. According to ohnonotgmail, if a person becomes incapacitated then there is NO mechanism by which their assets can ever be accessed to their benefit until they die. I hope you don't charge for legal advice?

there are mechanisms. the post you responded to mentioned those mechanisms. again, you need to read the posts you reply to.

Well there might have been a concern from the start in that case that the beneficiaries would be delayed in cashing in their inheritance should there be tenants, thereby causing an inconvenience. (The other reason for a delay in cashing in the inheritance would be, of course, the person hanging on)

I just think there should be an incentive to rent out those unused houses. It is difficult to see why someone could argue with that as a concept.

The court would have allowed her assets to be used to pay for her care. The route you chose was the Far Deal scheme. It was not the only possible outcome. That is my simple point.

Not correct ... as a Care Rep I am only allowed to enter the property in to the Fair Deal scheme - I still can not dispose of any of her assets. So again you don't know what you are talking about

what are the other options for those that lack capacity?

Can you tell me what way there is for me to dispose of my mother's assets when she has no mental capacity and no Enduring Power of Attorney ?

You seem to think there is - but it must be a mystery?

Even if you are not aware, google + 2 mins is your friend. For example:

I never said there was a way for you to (unilaterally) dispose of her assets. It would need to be done through the court and with the permission of the court. Any proceeds would be protected for the ward's benefit and decisions would be made for the ward's benefit alone. See above.

Am I saying you should do that? No, I don't know your circumstances. I am only saying it is an option. Signing up to FD is always an option.

Even after a person is already in FD. Should they later lose capacity and should it be necessary, they can still be made a ward of court.

I understand that - and after being shafted by tenants in the past I would sooner set fire to the house than become a landlord again. It also opens up the chances of never being able to regain control of the property again.

It is a bungalow sitting on almost an acre in a large commuter town - in reality it needs to be knocked down and either apartments or houses built on the site. If it were rented out and SF had there way it would be left as a single rented house until the tenants decided to leave - which is not what is needed for the housing crisis