Signing house over to children before care

meerkat2007

wylderocks wrote: »

Also, as there were people in that care home who had no assets to sell, how can they be getting the same level of care? It seems highly unfair and hypocritical that someone who has saved all their life, been careful with money have that taken by the greedy and selfish "care" authorities, whilst people with no assets get this paid for.

Yet again a sign of our so called classless society!!!

People who have no assets to sell are not necessarily spongers, you know. My mother worked all her life in a succession of low-paid, menial jobs, and had no opportunity to save up.

Are you saying that when she developed Alzheimer's a couple of years ago, she should be denied care because she had no assets, even though she was a taxpayer all her working life?

seven-day-weekend

We have two, paid-for homes. We are in our early 60s. In the event of both of us ending up in care (heaven forbid), we are hoping to raise an immediate needs annuity on the second.

Can anyone see any problems with this plan? (our son already lives in the first home).

(Edited to add: our second home at the moment is in Spain. At some point in the future we will sell it and buy a second home in the UK. We would live in this home. It would be this UK home that would form the basis for the annuity.)

margaretclare

wylderocks wrote: »

The issue is simply this. My grandmother went into a care home 5 years ago with dementia. My dad had to sell her house, use her savings and use her pension to pay for her care costs. Before the money ran out she was paying over a thousand pounds a month in care bills. Once all of her money ran out she was liable for care costs, leaving her the grand sum of £5 a week to live on. "Why would she need money," you ask? "She was fed, clothed and kept warm, what more do you want?" Well what about new clothes, slippers which she needed, her hair done!

She eventually died in Feb of this year and the care home chased my dad for care bills outstanding. Even when she had died at the beginning of the month and was up to date with her payments. :mad:

So to those who think that the money should be spent on the elderly person to make them comfortable, I ask you how can anyone be comfortable on £5 a week!!!!?????

Also, as there were people in that care home who had no assets to sell, how can they be getting the same level of care? It seems highly unfair and hypocritical that someone who has saved all their life, been careful with money have that taken by the greedy and selfish "care" authorities, whilst people with no assets get this paid for.

Yet again a sign of our so called classless society!!!

I could pick holes in this kind of argument all day. I detest this kind of inflammatory and biased language, which is not even accurate.

Could you please define who are the 'greedy and selfish care authorities'? If you mean the local authority social services departments up and down the country, it may have escaped your notice but all these departments are strapped for cash, even more so since the election than they were before, and they are having to make cuts all over the place. There is therefore even less justification than there ever was, for people who can afford to pay, not to pay.

There used to be a phrase 'we're saving for a rainy day'. It's amazing how, when that rainy day arrives, there is an unwillingness to use savings which were saved for that very purpose. Your grandmother had a house which she no longer lived in. What was she meant to do with that house? So it was sold and, as an asset made of bricks-and-mortar, it was turned into an asset made of cash, which she then had to spend on her expenses of living in a care home.

No, she didn't spend £5 a week on her comfort. Her comfort was ensured by the fact that she was living under someone else's roof, eating, sleeping etc, having laundry and cleaning services. Just as you would in a good-class holiday hotel or guest house.

I could go on, but I can't be bothered. It is just a futile argument.

Oh, about the so-called 'classless society'. If you've been watching Michael Wood's 'Story of England' you'll know that, from the time of the Black Death in the 1340s, which effectively destroyed feudalism, it has always been possible for individuals and families to better themselves and to rise in social status. It's not always hard work that does it - meerkat2007's mother was one of those (and there are many) who worked hard but never gained much above a basic standard of living. What one needs, as well as hard work, is luck. DH has a saying that 'luck is when enterprise meets opportunity'. Many people never met that opportunity, or didn't recognise it when it arrived, maybe weren't brave enough to grasp it, whatever. Some have even been prevented from grasping that opportunity, maybe by outdated prejudice from family members e.g. 'it's not worth educating a girl'. Whatever.

I've been very fortunate in many ways, have had numerous opportunities, some I passed up, others I didn't. Starting from a very poor background I know all about class. However, I'm proud of my step-granddaughters. Their ancestors on their Dad's side were penniless immigrants in 1895. They're going to Repton School having won scholarships, and we're invited to their carol service at which one sings in the choir and the other plays cello in the youth orchestra.

kev.s

Torry_Quine wrote: »

You must get a solicitor involved to get the house signed over legally. If the elderly person goes into care the local authority can still treat the property as if it was still belonging to them but the longer that has passed the less likely this is. there is no time limit for this, it is up to individual councils to make up thier own rules which is unfair.:

got to agree here, get a lawyer everytime, be aware tho the local authority can still claim the house in leiu of care fee's, the sooner you do it the better as if it's done only a few weeks etc before you decided you want to go into care they can claim the property from your siblings. i know this is the case up here as i've recently had the same discussion with my mother, ours was all done thru lawyers, and she does not even need the care side of it.
get it legal and don't let the !!!!!!s get your house;)

PennyForThem_2

get it legal and don't let the !!!!!!s get your house;)

yup best thing to do. Why should you have to give up everything you worked so hard for and spent so much money on?

Biggles

PennyForThem wrote: »

yup best thing to do. Why should you have to give up everything you worked so hard for and spent so much money on?

What are you going to do with an empty house when you've gone into a care home?

You would sell it anyway, whatever you decided to do with the money. And that way you get to choose what care you want.

Did you 'work so hard' just to leave everything to your family? Or did you work so hard to buy a Care Needs Annuity to make sure you had the best care when you needed it, and to leave the balance (probably still substantial) to your family?

And, 'the !!!s' don't 'get your house', that's a complete misunderstanding.

Errata

I think it can be understood by many that people see their house, which they may have paid £10k for and is now worth £200k, is an asset they would like to see their family benefit from.

Those trying to think up ways of hanging on to this asset should consider -
Visiting a care home their local authority would fund a place in and fully understand the level of care provided compared to the level of care for a place in a care home they could fund themselves
That the 'they' who snatch homes to fund care are local council taxpayers ie their own children

pelirocco

Ted_Hutchinson wrote: »

As Edinvestor says it is very important to arrange your finances in such a way as to minimise inheritance tax and you really need a professional adviser to ensure you've taken the right steps.
I do think that you still need control over your finances so that should the worst happen and you have to go into a home, either residentail or nursing, that you, or your guardian, have the power to make decisions in your best interests.
The local authority are strapped for cash and will offer the cheapest accomodation available. There may be nothing wrong with their choice but it may not be in the right place for your visitors, it may simply not be right for you although it meets all the current legal requirements. If you do not have the cash available to decide for yourself or your aged parent that they need to move to a place where they can have visitors more frequently or a more amenable enviroment what are you going to do.

By the time most elderly folk are in this position their children, even their grandchildren will have homes and this addittional inherited wealth from the old person home will be spent simply on holidays or moving upmarket. The extra wealth that has been generated in the old persons home should in my view be spent first to ensure that persons needs are met FIRST, this means retaining sufficient funds to enable them or their guardian (should Alzheimer's strike) to have the flexibility of independent choice should it be needed. I really don't see the current priority for children to get their hands on the capital to squander it on new cars and flash holidays should take priority over the needs of the elderly person and their right to spend their remaining years with as much dignity and care as possible.

I think it is misplaced generousity for elderly people to think their first priority should be to pass on wealth to their children or grandchildren rather than spend it on themselves ensuring they have a reasonable standard of care in their last few months.

I would be very disappointed if my children tried to persuade me to pass on the value of my house to them rather than waste it on my getting proper care in my last few months.

I couldnt agree more , we were in the position last year of having to find care for my mother in law when she entered the end stages of dementia ,
.......decent care homes cost a fortune , my Oh and sister in law found the one they were happy with outside her 'catchment '' area without the back up of a house to sell god knows where she would have ended .sadly she died just a few days before she could move in .

If ,when we die there is money left over , then my children can have it , but there is no way either of us aren't going to live out our days in comfort ( god willing ) for the sake of passing money on

If you have the means , make sure you have the choice where to spend your final days

margaretclare

I absolutely agree with pelirocco above. S/he has said it all.

pollypenny

margaretclare wrote: »

I absolutely agree with pelirocco above. S/he has said it all.

Seconded!


And I am fed up with posters asking how to stop 'them' or 'the state' getting their parents house. We are the state! I do not want to pay taxes on my pension so that someone's kids inherit a property.

One way is to look after that parent yourself - rarely practical.