Housing benefit for homeowners

HappyMJ

John_Stiles wrote: »

You're probably right, I have been advised that it is pretty uncommon for councils to successfully get their paws on a property which has been put into trust. After all, if it's in a trust, it does not belong to the person anymore and therefore cannot (hardly ever, only in exceptional cirumstances) be nabbed. That's why I'm not particularly worried about that. When I have more information about trusts and which type to go for, I'll be in a better position to judge this, but trusts are quite complex, although the basics are fairly straightforward. People use trusts for all sorts of reasons, ranging from protecting their assets from 3rd parties (ie councils) to tax avoidance.

I wonder if there's any info on trusts on this website.

Since when do councils have paws.... Why don't you submit a Freedom of Information request to your local council asking them how many houses/properties they have got their paws on to pay for care home fees. You'll probably find the answer to be zero or maybe 1.

The council will not sell someone's home whilst they are alive. Once they have died then the house becomes part of the estate. The estate is liquidated/sold and any outstanding bills paid from that. If in the last few years of their lives they have been staying in a good quality care home then the fees will be paid from the sale of the property. If you wish to purchase the property from the estate then that's up to you to raise the necessary funds to buy it.

If when they need a care home you would like them to stay in a council provided home with pocket money of about £20 a week so you can have their house when they're gone then that's up to you to set up the trust. This government website offers some advice to avoid the sale of a home to pay for care home fees http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CaringForSomeone/CareHomes/DG_10031523

John_Stiles

skintandscared wrote: »

I just don't understand this at all.

No, you don't.

John_Stiles

antrobus wrote: »

Don't know to be honest. I Am Not A Lawyer. I know that it can be expensive, but a simple decleration of trust might be fairly straightforward and inexpensive.



That is my understanding of the position as well.

Or indeed the motivation for buying a property and putting someone else's name down as owner.

I know someone who has done this very successfully. It's just a case of knowing the rules and using it to your advantage, just as councils do all the time. Councils are listed corporations with the aim of generating income. That's their purpose. That doesn't always fit in with what is right, which is why it's always important to know the rules that they play by. I know from experience how easy it is to get something done quickly and effectively when you know how.

As for the reason for buying the property in the first place, that's not a problem. The person in question has a very good reason which is that they have to leave their current property. I'm very optimistic that with the right information this won't be too tricky. From what I've read and looked into, I think it would cost roughly £1,000 - £4,000 to set up a trust. That's not a problem either, although it's quite a hefty amount.

skintandscared_2

John_Stiles wrote: »

No, you don't.

Explain it to me then John. Tell me what we're all misunderstanding.

pinky2681

I'll explain what i've read so far.....

man wants to carry on claiming what he's entitled to (hb) and wants to know if he can still claim hb if he's named on a house? i dont see why not as he cant sell (or at least isnt going to) the house whilst his mum is still alive so wont be any richer etc. His situation (financially) will be the same. It will however mean his mums assests dont get sold to provide for her care if she became ill, but she will still recieve care.

If his mum is happy to do this why is op being slated as 'wad grabbing' and stealing from the dead etc? As a mum myself i look after my children, which is just what his mum is doing. If his mum had wanted to spend it - her choice isnt it? My dad was named on his mums will - she had no mortgage, shopped at discounted shops etc, she could of sold the house and !!!!ed the money up the wall but she didnt want to, knowing it would be going to her children (my dad) when she died, whats wrong with that?

skintandscared_2

pinky2681 wrote: »

I'll explain what i've read so far.....

man wants to carry on claiming what he's entitled to (hb) and wants to know if he can still claim hb if he's named on a house? i dont see why not as he cant sell (or at least isnt going to how do you know?) the house whilst his mum is still alive so wont be any richer etc. His situation (financially) will be the same. No, it's not the same, he will now have assets worth at least half the value of the property. It will however mean his mums assests dont get sold to provide for her care if she became ill, but she will still recieve care. From who, and at what level of care? What if the NHS/benefits level isn't enough? What if she's put into a care home where she's unhappy?

If his mum is happy to do this why is op being slated as 'wad grabbing' and stealing from the dead etc? As a mum myself i look after my children, which is just what his mum is doing. If his mum had wanted to spend it - her choice isnt it? My dad was named on his mums will - she had no mortgage, shopped at discounted shops etc, she could of sold the house and !!!!ed the money up the wall but she didnt want to, knowing it would be going to her children (my dad) when she died, whats wrong with that?

Well that is very kind and if it were the mother posting here, asking how to protect an asset for her children, then I probably wouldn't be so offended by it. What I can't get my head around is that someone would not want their parent to have absolutely the BEST in their twilight years and have the happiest/most comfortable last few years of life. My boss paid £400 a week plus travel expenses to have a team of live-in carers stay 24/7 in his mother's house so she could stay in the place she loved right up 'til her last days and that is totally what I would want for my parent(s).

pinky2681

I think we all want the best, but also when my gran was in hospital (nhs) my dad didnt rush off and put her into a private hospital - he still wanted the best. It was her choice, i suppose he could of told her to sell the house and put her in the best private hospital and she might of preffered it but its just not what people do. I dont always think paying more always means better care (in most cases it prob would). btw i dont have any inheritance coming, so i'm not trying to defend or anything just trying to look at the whole picture.

John_Stiles

Pinky, you've summed it all up very well.

I have had a look at other threads where somebody has asked a question revolving around the whole issue of care home fees / inheritance in relation to trusts and whatnot, and I noticed that in all of them the person asking the question is jumped on by sad judgemental people with poor comprehension skills and a curtain twitching nature.

It's not my job to explain or justify myself to anyone here. I've asked a question and I am gradually getting closer to the answers and information which I need. My only objective is to continue doing that. There's no need for me to reassure anyone of my motives. It doesn't matter to me if someone thinks my motives are bad, because being concerned about that is irrelevant to my objective.

I have learned quite a bit about what I asked and although the helpful responses are far and few between, when they come they are more helpful than I would have imagined.

And I'm very optimistic. From what I've come across here and elsewhere, it is easy to protect one's assets, as long as one has the right information and a couple of grand, the former of which I'm getting by the day, the latter of which is also not a problem.

clemmatis

pinky2681 wrote: »

I think we all want the best, but also when my gran was in hospital (nhs) my dad didnt rush off and put her into a private hospital - he still wanted the best. It was her choice, i suppose he could of told her to sell the house and put her in the best private hospital and she might of preffered it but its just not what people do. I dont always think paying more always means better care (in most cases it prob would). btw i dont have any inheritance coming, so i'm not trying to defend or anything just trying to look at the whole picture.

This isn't about private hospitals, it's about what happens when/if someone has to go into a nursing home, perhaps, from a hospital. If they can afford to pay, they can choose a nursing home. I chose my mother's, I chose one with a good reputation, that I liked when I visited it, that had good inspection reports, that our GPs visited, that was near enough for me to be able to visit a lot. It cost a fair amount more than Social Services would have paid if they'd funded it. If they had, she'd have had to go to a cheaper one that wasn't anywhere near as good (a cheaper private one: there seem to be hardly any council-run nursing homes now).


(I was my mother's heir.)

pinky2681

it was just an example, you did the best you could for your mum - like i said most people do want the best, but this (i believe) is op's mums wishes, i dont see why he should go against them. If he's not actually gaining financially from being named as owner then he should still be able to recieve same benefits, once his mum has passed away or isnt living there then it will have to become an assett as then its his and he is choosing not to sell it /live there etc. Its a awkward situation.