Putting home into family trust to avoid nursing home fees

Andypandyboy

zygurat789 wrote: »

But once deprivation of assets has been proved surely the authorities can take steps to undo those transactions and ensure that their bill is paid.
Would that mean throwing the cghildren out of their homes so that they can be sold?

Mine all have homes now bar one who is currently too young. These are not part of the equation, they had some help with deposits but mainly they achieved ownership through their own hard work and savings. I have no doubt that the youngest will do likewise.

lessonlearned

Just drafted you a detailed reply explaining the system about equipment fiunding etc, how it works, but I lost it and don't have time to do another.

for your sake I just hope you never have to find out the hard way, like I did.

The six years I spent caring for my husband were hell, a constant worry not just about him but about money too. I was taken to the point of bankruptcy and I wrecked my health. I also saved the State a small fortune.

So yes I wasnt always best pleased at having to fund everything when they kept messing up, when they refused to pay DLA and made me go through three appeals and a tribunal, when we met their financial criteria but they kept dragging their heels, when I had to beg and grovel for help.

Just pray that you never have to go through anything like it in your lifetime. You will get the shock of your life.

To get back to the point of the thread.

I am all in favour of protecting what assets we can, using what legal apparatus is available to us.

However, I am not in favour of people shirking their responsibilities and civic duties.

There is a difference in what I have done and the OPs attitude.

In the world of finance there is also often a world of difference between what is legally acceptable and what is morally correct.

It is not my intention to be all holier than thou, but I do think that what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. So yes I will sit in judgement on the OP, she is morally wrong.

Sevenofnine - Im Not quite sure why you have decided to aim your critique solely at me. There are others on here who have done similar and yet you spare them your ire.

Not quite sure of why you only have issues with me..........

Ive dotted the "i's" and crossed the "t's" and tried to prepare for the future as best as I can.

Ive tried to do not just what is legally acceptable but what is also morally correct.

wyattnorm

IanManc wrote: »

No it isn't. It's a legal minefield.

If half the house is owned by the children then that half is part of their assets. The house could be subject to a forced sale if one became bankrupt, and it counts towards their assets if one divorces. If they don't live there then the children pay capital gains tax on their share when the house is eventually sold. If the spouse who still owns half goes into a home and the house isn't sold at that point then the council simply place a legal charge on the property for the care fees they've paid, and recover the money from the proceeds of sale when the house is eventually sold. Meanwhile the children have to maintain an empty house ....... or if one of them lives in it then they either have to pay rent to the parent in the care home who who owns half the house, which the council will use to pay the care fees, or the council will simply assume that rent is being paid and stop paying a portion of the fees to the home that is equal to the "notional" rent and if you don't like it they'll let you take them to court - where they'd probably win.

And those are just the obvious pitfalls .......

Ther really isn't an effective way of the last remaining spouse avoiding the sale of the home to pay care fees. If there was an effective method then the government would legislate to stop it - but they haven't done because a foolproof method doesn't exist.

Apart from that, less than one in ten homeowners end up in care homes anyway, so it is daft to deprive yourself of ownership of your home when there's at least a 90% chance you'll live in it until you die.

I'm glad I read this post as it has opened my eyes quite a lot. We changed to 'Tenants in common', not to avoid health care. I was concerned that being a man and readily accepting that we usually die first, if my wife remarried and as and when she died, someone else could inherit all I had worked for and my kids may get nothing.

How easy is it to revert to the conventional house ownership?

The 'legal minefield' is just that. Ordinary people are trying to use the legal system and not always understanding the full implications, as I am now trying to do.

I fully support us paying for the best care we can afford, which if you looked at my savings and situation, will not be too lavish.

Good site with plenty of good advice.

wyattnorm

Having just posted the above, my wife came and asked me a question. Could I find out if there was a post that highlighted all of the pitfalls (that were never pointed out by the solicitor) in tenants in common, if anyone can point me towards such a post, I will be really grateful.

Kind regards.

seven-day-weekend

Torry_Quine wrote: »

I know that my parents didn't have the money as I know how they lived, very simply and there was not spare money for luxuries such as holidays even in the 70s when I was well aware of the finances in the home.

We never went on holiday either, other than to relatives in Norfolk, nor did we have a car. We just didn't have the money. My dad was a machinist in a factory and my mum was a housewife.

zygurat789

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We never went on holiday either, other than to relatives in Norfolk, nor did we have a car. We just didn't have the money. My dad was a machinist in a factory and my mum was a housewife.

From an early age I was in a single parent family, no dad, Mum worked part time in a clerical job. Three of us had occasional holidays at the coast but we had no car, Mum couldn't drive.

PennyForThem_2

Let us celebrate that women now have more chance for equality. I (baby boomer) have certainly experienced more choice in living through greater opportunity to earn and now accumulate pension.

missbiggles1

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We never went on holiday either, other than to relatives in Norfolk, nor did we have a car. We just didn't have the money. My dad was a machinist in a factory and my mum was a housewife.

That's surely the point.

We didn't have holidays until I was in my mid teens when my mum gave up doing a bit of domestic cleaning and got a proper full time job in an office.

IME, you never could have luxuries like holidays on one income if you were working class, you needed both parents to be working for that.

Doc_N

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We never went on holiday either, other than to relatives in Norfolk, nor did we have a car. We just didn't have the money. My dad was a machinist in a factory and my mum was a housewife.

zygurat789 wrote: »

From an early age I was in a single parent family, no dad, Mum worked part time in a clerical job. Three of us had occasional holidays at the coast but we had no car, Mum couldn't drive.

PennyForThem wrote: »

Let us celebrate that women now have more chance for equality. I (baby boomer) have certainly experienced more choice in living through greater opportunity to earn and now accumulate pension.

I'm puzzled. What's any of this got to do with the purpose of the thread, which is:

"Putting home into family trust to avoid nursing home fees"

margaretclare

missbiggles1 wrote: »

That's surely the point.

We didn't have holidays until I was in my mid teens when my mum gave up doing a bit of domestic cleaning and got a proper full time job in an office.

IME, you never could have luxuries like holidays on one income if you were working class, you needed both parents to be working for that.

So what's new. My eldest GD is self-employed, works through an agency, and never has holidays either. Her only time away is a 'working holiday' with Sea Cadets - she's an adult instructor.

There are many people like her who don't get paid holidays and can't afford to take the time off. It was only when people started to get time off with pay that they could afford to take holidays. In the industrial towns they used to go away en masse to seaside towns like Blackpool. So you'd spend your holiday time alongside the neighbours that you lived and worked beside.

As for the relevance to this thread, I suppose it's because only in the last couple of generations has the question arisen of having enough assets to leave to descendants, and also, the question of having to pay for care.