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

andyandflo

Errata wrote: »

There is no 7 year rule for Deprivation of Assets, it's an urban myth.

Yes I know that - I was confused as there were two things being discussed at the same time. IH tax & Deprivation of capital.

calleyw

andyandflo wrote: »

Yes that is quite possible. To sign something over like that and for the intention of avoiding having it used to pay the fees is very dangerous territory. Hence proper legal advice should be sought beforehand to avoid this happening.

There is an old saying - there is more than one way of skinning a cat!

That is why I said in my second post that proper advice was required and it will cost.

Sadly I have seen first hand what happens when a will is not written properly and fairly when family members don't get on.

The stress it caused was unreal.

Personally I will spend all money before I die and if there is any left it will go to charity :rotfl:


Yours

Calley

Oldernotwiser

calleyw wrote: »

That is why I said in my second post that proper advice was required and it will cost.

Surely the only person who should be getting advice is the person who owns the property?

woody01

Deleted_User wrote: »

Do you not think that my grandparents, parents and I pay taxes too?

The point in case here is that my nan doesn't need to go into a retirement home, but Social Services are pressing for this to happen as they don't have any other solution to the problem. My nan is not ill, either physically or mentally.

And?
I, as a very high tax payer, should not be paying for YOUR family, when they have the means to pay for themselves.

So what if you are a taxpayer? You are on a 'money grabbing' exercise with this, and want other people to foot the bill which your gran should be paying, so you can pick up a few quid.

The MAIN problem here is that you seem to be so hung up on picking over the financial bones, that you probably haven't even considered what your gran wants.

woody01

My nan would LOVE to be in a home amongst ill people, almost as much as she would love to be in a hospital.

So make HER wish come true and put her in a private home where she can be happy!
If you decided to try and 'deprive' her of her assets and get away with it (which is very unlikely), you are effectively stealing whats hers and not yours, and she will have to see out her days in some flea pit.

I don't know you, but you are coming across as very selfish...she may just suprise you all remember, and leave nothing to any of you.

Deleted_User wrote: »

I'm trying to find out what grounds they have, but I believe this is something they have mentioned. The discussions that my nan's GP has had with my dad has followed those lines: that my nan is a risk to others (by wasting emergency services time) and so could be sectioned and placed into care.

Why do i get the feeling this wasn't from the GP, but from what your dad has said.

The more i read, the more i feel sorry for your gran, as it sounds to me like none of you want her around, but are quite willing to spend EVERYTHING she has between you.

calleyw

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Surely the only person who should be getting advice is the person who owns the property?

Sorry Yes you are correct. The OP's grandmother should be getting advice if she wants to.

But as I said before it is her house and she can do what she likes including leaving it to the cats home.

Which personally I would do. As I would not be very impressed to find out that my own children saw me as a cash machine for their retirements.

To me it seems that the only reason that no-one wants her to go in to a home and pay for her own care is so that they can have the money once she is gone. But the family don't really like her or care for her according to the op. But when there is money involved they come running funny that.

Yours

Calley

FATBALLZ

Listening to the sob story to try to justify robbing the taxpayer is even more pathetic than the crap you get on x factor. If you want to make a easy dirty profit however immorally at least just come out and tell it like it is instead of coming up with the bile inducing BS.

margaretclare

Calleyw, if you glance back to the start of this thread, it was stated that this 'inheritance' was always intended by grandad to be there for the grandchildren and not for his widow. That is my interpretation of what's been written, anyway.

I hasten to add: I cannot empathise with that way of thinking in any shape or form. If grandad's widow inherited the property from her spouse then it is, has always been, and will remain, hers until she no longer needs it.

Someone even wrote - in terribly bad grammar and spelling - that this was the thinking in grandad's day when many women didn't go out to work and his assets - what he'd earned by working - were to go to the children/grandchildren and not to his widow. This kind of idea was stamped on some years ago in a divorce ruling. Even if a woman doesn't work outside the home, the work she does inside it in bringing up a family and all the rest of the home responsibilities, entitle her to a 50% share.

[Deleted User]

Can I just point out that I have nothing to gain from this financially. I am not the one subject to any inheritance - I do not care about receiving any money. What I do care about is seeing my parents have to deal on a daily basis with a parent who destroys the lives of those around her quite maliciously.

As I mentioned earlier, both my nan and grandad have also been taxpayers throughout their lives - it amuses me when others come on here arguing that they shouldn't be paying their taxes for someone else like this. I assume that if you contract a terrible illness (heaven forbid) then you will be offering your savings first to the NHS before any taxpayers' money is spent on you? I didn't think so. This is precisely what people pay taxes for all their lives - so that the benefit of the state in all its forms is provided to you, whether that's via a care home, money spent on better roads or education for your children. I am sure that those who are so criticial will at some time require the NHS and will choose to accept its free care rather than selling their property to fund their treatment. That's what it's there for.

Does that make my parents selfish? Possibly. But that's something that will have to weigh on their conscience and mine - and quite frankly it's something I'm happy to live with. My nan doesn't need to go into a home. She doesn't need it. It's a waste of everyone's time and money. I fail to see why social services have the ability to direct someone into care and thereby deprive them of their funds when they do not need that care. Perhaps your ire could equally be directed at them, trying to silence a problem by hiding it?

Getting back to the point: we're not trying to push a nuisance nan into a home. We don't want her in a home. She - most likely - doesn't want to go into a home either. But she LOVES attention and thrives on being in hospitals. She loves pity. She makes up the fact she has illnesses to try and get sympathy. I have no sympathy for her. Our family exhausted all their sympathy over the 30 years this has been going on.

[Deleted User]

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Listening to the sob story to try to justify robbing the taxpayer is even more pathetic than the crap you get on x factor. If you want to make a easy dirty profit however immorally at least just come out and tell it like it is instead of coming up with the bile inducing BS.

I can see it both ways, but as I mentioned previously, this argument always makes it sound like the 'culprit' has never been taxes in their life. They have - for longer than you have, and possibly more than you have.