Dont want to loose a property i own to pay for care home.

Oldernotwiser

Treading_Water wrote: »

Surely though, in this case, it wasn't done to avoid care home fees but, to provide Nan with a safe continuing home for as long as she needed it, (With the added bonus of being a long term investment.)

If it wasn't done to avoid paying care home fees, why all the pre planning re trusts etc, why not just give her the money to buy it? I helped my parents to buy their flat but never dreamt of doing anything like this; I provided the funds and the property was in their names.

Baz_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

If it wasn't done to avoid paying care home fees, why all the pre planning re trusts etc, why not just give her the money to buy it? I helped my parents to buy their flat but never dreamt of doing anything like this; I provided the funds and the property was in their names.

So his Nan can't go and sell it and spend the proceeds on bingo.

Oldernotwiser

Baz wrote: »

So his Nan can't go and sell it and spend the proceeds on bingo.

Ha bloody ha!

McKneff

the OP saw £ signs, whether a fast buck or in 15 years.

The daughters would be the natural heirs if a trust fund had not been set up.
because the house belongs to Nan. It is her name on the deeds.
It could cause problems when Nan is no longer with us..

Tax payers expense - council housing is subsidised.

Homeless persons expense - the family who should have got the house under normal circumstances when the nan (as a tenant moved out)

McKneff

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Ha bloody ha!

oooh ONW and me a vicars daughter :rotfl:

Baz_2

anniehanlon wrote: »

the OP saw £ signs, whether a fast buck or in 15 years.

The daughters would be the natural heirs if a trust fund had not been set up.
because the house belongs to Nan. It is her name on the deeds.
It could cause problems when Nan is no longer with us..

Tax payers expense - council housing is subsidised.

Homeless persons expense - the family who should have got the house under normal circumstances when the nan (as a tenant moved out)

And just ignore the interest and investment potential the council has had from the sales proceeds of the house that they would not have had. Plus council tax benefit and and rent subsidies are not longer needed etc. Its not just a one way thing.

And why do people ignore the fact that the deeds has nan as the proprietor and him as the legal owner.

McKneff

Council tax discount 25% and possibly other benefits.
I still dont think that someones name can be on the deeds and someone totally different can be the legal owner but who am i, I think he may have a fight on his hands. People are just too greedy these days, its a sad world.

Oldernotwiser

Baz wrote: »

And why do people ignore the fact that the deeds has nan as the proprietor and him as the legal owner.

But that's not what the OP said. He said " but we left the deeds in her name so i could "Inherit" the property." You're the one using the word "proprietor".

Baz_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

But that's not what the OP said. He said " but we left the deeds in her name so i could "Inherit" the property." You're the one using the word "proprietor".

No, if you look at the deeds that's the word that is used. You can then set up a trust to over ride that. Like when your minor daughter for example inherits a house. She is not old enough to be on the deeds so the trust kicks in, puts you on the deeds as proprietor and her as the legal owner. i.e she owns the house but you are on the deeds.

noh

Baz wrote: »

No, if you look at the deeds that's the word that is used. You can then set up a trust to over ride that. Like when your minor daughter for example inherits a house. She is not old enough to be on the deeds so the trust kicks in, puts you on the deeds as proprietor and her as the legal owner. i.e she owns the house but you are on the deeds.

Yes but we don't know what the land registry entry states in this particular case.
Perhaps the OP can tell us?