Elderly relative, care homes and selling houses...a complicated enquiry!

Oldernotwiser

Deleted_User wrote: »

With respect, as I mentioned in my original post - just believe what I say rather than applying your subjective opinion to a situation you know very little about.
.

Also with respect, I did believe what you said in your op, where you explained that your grandma was causing stress in your family because of her attention seeking behavior. You've now added more detail but none of this was given at first.

I agree with others that Social Services shouldn't be trying to push her off into residential care just for other people's convenience when she isn't physically or mentally ill. If she eventually decides that this is what she wants to do (and I hope to goodness that there's no mechanism where they can force her) then I think it only fair that the family should either fund her care or accept that she has the capital to fund her own.

I do feel that the family should be acting as advocates for this old lady, rather than encouraging social services to sweep her under the carpet.

andyandflo

sloughflint wrote: »

Bit late now other than explore annuities if she does ever go into care.

Ummm, what are you talking about - annuities??? I'm talking about ownership or deemed ownership of the home. It's never too late to organise the lady's affairs that will make it impossible for either the NHS/Social Services/HMRC to get their gruby little mits on its' net worth.

Trusts are another simple cost effective way of 'ring fencing' the asset so that they cannot have any claim upon it.

Everybody should have at least these levels of protection for their own futures.

I recovered as the administrator over £30,000 Inheritance Tax from the tax man after the death of my late uncle. My son in law who is a solicitor 'ring fenced' another relative's current estate worth over £800,000 for me. None of that will attract tax when he dies, not will it be used to fund any future care he might need in the future.

For goodness sake, why oh why do these people still allow this 'robbery' to take place?

dmg24

andyandflo wrote: »

It's never too late to organise the lady's affairs that will make it impossible for either the NHS/Social Services/HMRC to get their gruby little mits on its' net worth.

Yes, it is - seven years too late.

Oldernotwiser

andyandflo wrote: »

Ummm, what are you talking about - annuities??? I'm talking about ownership or deemed ownership of the home. It's never too late to organise the lady's affairs that will make it impossible for either the NHS/Social Services/HMRC to get their gruby little mits on its' net worth.

Trusts are another simple cost effective way of 'ring fencing' the asset so that they cannot have any claim upon it.

Everybody should have at least these levels of protection for their own futures.

I recovered as the administrator over £30,000 Inheritance Tax from the tax man after the death of my late uncle. My son in law who is a solicitor 'ring fenced' another relative's current estate worth over £800,000 for me. None of that will attract tax when he dies, not will it be used to fund any future care he might need in the future.

For goodness sake, why oh why do these people still allow this 'robbery' to take place?

I think that loopholes like this ( irrelevant here) should be closed as quickly as possible as they are even worse than benefit fraud.

andyandflo

dmg24 wrote: »

Yes, it is - seven years too late.

Sorry the 7 year rule applies to gifts which escape Inheritance Tax. There is nothing stopping the old lady - providing that it is done before any care home is sought, to have the home transferred into a non discretionary trust. Provided that this is done correctly and not to defeat payment for care needs, they(Social Services) cannot get at it.

As the previous poster said also, sell the house now before she goes in a home, and distribute the proceeds.
The action was certainly never done to defeat payment!
The worst that can happen is she dies before the 7 years and IH is payable by the beneficaries - but that is better than doing nothing.

Social Services would have to show that she gave away her asset with the intention of avoiding payment.

As I said, go and see a good solicitor that specialises in estate planning. Check the Law Society website for a local one that has that speciality.

Also I am dismayed at the number of people in this country that are leaving themselves wide open to this unfair attack from Social Services. With a jointly owned property, how many still have it as 'jointly owned? If everybody changed the ownership rights to 'Tenants in Common' it would stop this unfair practice of paying for care in later life out of a hard earned asset by the 10's of 1,000's.

andyandflo

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I think that loopholes like this ( irrelevant here) should be closed as quickly as possible as they are even worse than benefit fraud.

Why should they? Everybody is entitled to do it.

I really wonder how many MP's have not taken up advice and 'protected' their estates.

What is good for the goose is good......

andyandflo

sloughflint wrote: »

I mean care needs annuities where you pay a fixed sum to provide a chosen level of income for life. The cost of these will be calculated according to the person's predicted lifespan.

I think what you are thinking about is planning as a couple had the grandfather still been alive?

Changing ownership now could be looked upon as deprivation of assets if she does end up in care anytime soon.

Having said all that, there is a solution depending upon when the husband died but it doesn't sound as though this woman should be parked into a care home.....yet.

Hi, right I see what you mean - no I wasn't even thinking of that scenario.

No it doesn't need to be for couples, it is still relevant for the 'donor' and the beneficaries to be joint tenant's in common within an UK non domicilary non discretionary trust.

I do note your comments as regards deprivation, but I am sure that before the old lady does go into a home - if ever - everbody will state that that was never the intention. OK yes she may loose some Income Based benefits, but you have to look at the whole picture!

Yes again, there is also a scenario that can be developed depending on the date of death of the husband - what was in his will? How was the 'gift' treated for IH purposes.

But on the whole I would suggest that this old lady needs care in the community not being shoved into a care home. And let's hope she lives another 7 years!!

dmg24

andyandflo wrote: »

Sorry the 7 year rule applies to gifts which escape Inheritance Tax. There is nothing stopping the old lady - providing that it is done before any care home is sought, to have the home transferred into a non discretionary trust. Provided that this is done correctly and not to defeat payment for care needs, they(Social Services) cannot get at it.

It also applies to deprivation of capital when looking at care home funding.

Bennifred

:eek:Am I the only reader to find it outrageous that someone is plotting what to do with SOMEONE ELSE'S property/money?:eek:

Regardless of whether the relative is loved or not - the lack of concern for the old lady's well-being and the sense of entitlement to HER property is appalling.....

sunnyone

Bennifred wrote: »

:eek:Am I the only reader to find it outrageous that someone is plotting what to do with SOMEONE ELSE'S property/money?:eek:

Regardless of whether the relative is loved or not - the lack of concern for the old lady's well-being and the sense of entitlement to HER property is appalling.....

But its not hers, her husband worked hard and payed for it at a time when women were atay at home mothers with the intent that they both would pop there clogs and leave it too there kids but shes not willing to die without it costing the family money which they would begrudge wether she was a very lonely woman looking for attention to prove that she was alive or not.