Advice on parents money?

monkey_spank

Errata wrote:

Sorry - I don't believe that both the Local Authority, the Land Registry and the solicitor got it wrong.
If you believe they were then please provide references to the legal instruments I can check on the internet that I can use as evidence in a court of law to enable me to successfully sue the LA, Land Registry and the solicitor.

Errara wrote:

I can assure you everything was done correctly and legally.

I hope you weren't bamboozled by the smooth talking solicitor into your change of heart! :rolleyes:

sanfly

Cacran wrote: »

My mums assets were the value of money in her own accounts and half the joint acounts. .

Re the above, it sounds like couples should be careful how they arrange savings accounts when they get older, a lot of couples would put more savings in the spouses name to avoid income tax on the interest, thereby potentially putting at risk a larger proportion of their savings when being assesed by the local authority, so which is the best way, everything in joint accounts or split your savings down the middle into individual accounts??

sloughflint

Errata wrote: »

This evidence may also be of great benefit to others, both now and in the future.

I totally agree.
I have limited knowledge about this topic and found the links provided by the various posters very informative.

Errata wrote: »

Thank you Biggles. I can assure you everything was done correctly and legally.

In the absence of explanation from yourself or Robert Sterling, I can only discount your inputs in this thread.

margaretclare

sanfly wrote: »

Re the above, it sounds like couples should be careful how they arrange savings accounts when they get older, a lot of couples would put more savings in the spouses name to avoid income tax on the interest, thereby potentially putting at risk a larger proportion of their savings when being assessed by the local authority, so which is the best way, everything in joint accounts or split your savings down the middle into individual accounts??

I would have thought that for most people (apart from the high-earners who pay tax at top rate) both having savings in their own names would be the best option. Reason: both individuals have a personal tax allowance. In the age-group who can still claim married tax allowance (one of the couple born before April 1935) it is possible to have the MTA split between the couple. This is what DH and I have done.

Errata

monkey_spank wrote: »

I hope you weren't bamboozled by the smooth talking solicitor into your change of heart! :rolleyes:

I had no change of heart. I wasn't bamboozled. I'm not a fool and don't conduct business with smooth talkers.

monkeyspanner

sloughflint wrote: »

Thank you. I had not realised that it was a central LA arrangement.

I'm chancing my luck here on people's knowledge/experience, but can the scheme then be terminated once a property has finally been sold ( with a view of going down care needs annuity route)?

If the property is sold then the LA would have to be repaid the money that they had advanced to the care home under the deferred payment scheme. If the net capital remaining after repaying the LA and any other liabilities exceeded the savings limit (£22500 at the moment I think) then the care home resident would have to be entirely self-funding. The care home fees could be met completely or partially from an immediate care anuity. It is worth noting that self-funders could be entitled to Attendance Allowance which is not means tested. AA together with state pension could amount to about £160/week leaving the balance to be covered other income or capital.

I am not sure what the tax treatment of the anuity income would be.

I believe capital invested in a savings bond which includes an insurance element are disregarded when calculating savings. In addition it is normally possible to take 5% per year of the capital from these bonds tax free. These bonds are normally equity based so do carry an investment risk. Does anyone know what the LA's attitude to investments of this kind would be in relation to deliberate deprivation of asset rules and the timing of the initial investment?

EdInvestor

monkeyspanner wrote: »

I am not sure what the tax treatment of the anuity income would be.

It is usually tax free if paid direct to the care home.

monkeyspanner

LA's have a list of homes in their area. If the LA chose the home for a LA funding assisted resident then they chose from a subset of the list which are prepared to accept the LA funding levels (normally substantially lower fees than self-funding residents). Other homes on the list are available at a fee premium which the LA will expect a 3rd party to fund, normally family or friend. If the LA cannot place a resident in one of the subset then they should pay the fee premium but will try to avoid paying extra. So if the potential resident or family do not like the LA's choice it is possible to make anothert selection and pay the extra. All home are inspected by CSCI (Commission for Social Care Inspection) and you can look up the results of the last inspection on any home you are offered, I am not sure what detail is published.

ukmaggie45

monkeyspanner wrote: »

All home are inspected by CSCI (Commission for Social Care Inspection) and you can look up the results of the last inspection on any home you are offered, I am not sure what detail is published.

A lot of detail is published. Including all the things that need to be remedied.

I was horrified on reading the CSCI report on the home my Mum was in from last year (I think), latest one anyway. But went back to look at the one done just a few days after Mum died and it was OK with some minor problems.

Don't rely on these reports unless they are really recent.

But they are worth looking at if you look at the negatives (eg loose carpets - danger of falling and suchlike). And if it has huge negatives don't go there! From what we saw when looking for nursing homes they nearly all had some negative points, it's a matter of getting best you can.

Best wishes,

Maggie