mother and son buying council house question

ScotlandM

Hi Steveo,

If your mum needs care in the future, there are places that will pay for the care but Only if your mother has no money. You seem to think that if the house is in your name and your mum helps pay that it'll be ok, it wont.
The places that could help paying for the care will ask why doesn't your mum have half the house? Why did your mum pay something for nothing?

They'll say you have to give your mum some money for the care, just like she gave some money for the house. What's fair is fair and all that.


If you are worried about inheritance tax the limit is 325,000. So if your mum has less than that there will be no inheritance tax.

So, in total we don't think inheritance tax will be a problem (correct us if we are wrong) and keeping your mum's name of the mortgage won't help with paying for care. So as it won't help take the easy option of a joint mortgage. I hope your mum stays together with you for a long time in your house together

princeofpounds

well theres concern if she gets old and needs to go in a home that the house will need to be sold to pay for the care..although im not sure what happens if we both are on the papers

So this is the real question, as I suspected.

Actually I'm not going to lay into you on this subject. I do agree with many of the other posters that it isn't particularly ethical, but as long as you don't do anything illegal then it is at least within the rules.

For more guidance of the issue, read the leaflet at the link below. You will see that tranferring the title of a property to someone else is right up there in the list of things they look for.

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/home-and-care/care-homes/deprivation-of-assets-in-the-means-test-for-care-home-provision/

BottomRung

So if your Mum becomes infirm and needs care but no money and no assets to pay for it, because you have it in your name, who is going to pay for her care? You? Or the taxpayer?

Also if you have the money between you to buy the Council Property in cash, why not buy a private property as many others do? I always thought council properties were there for people that fell on hard times, or am I wrong?

steveo3002

^ her and my dad have paid rent on it for donkeys years and therfore you get a discount

i certainly dont feel bad as weve all paid our way , not sponging off the dole all out lives

BobQ

steveo3002 wrote: »

^ her and my dad have paid rent on it for donkeys years and therfore you get a discount

i certainly dont feel bad as weve all paid our way , not sponging off the dole all out lives

Steve, please do not be put off by those moralising and pontificating on ethics on here. Personally I think its very necessary for you to consider what would happen in the future if your mum were to go into care and you were living in the house in your late 50s.

One of the issues you need to consider is what your plans are for the future. If there is any possibility of you not living in the house would you expect your share of the house back? If so this will place your Mum in a difficult position. If you move out and lived elsewhere would you need the money you have locked up in the house? If so the arrangement may be complicated, if not you may have to pay capital gains tax on your part of it. when sold.

But if you plan to stay there, I think the best option is to buy it jointly as tenants in common so that you each own your share of the house. If you do this from the outset they could not touch your half of the house.

After you reach 60 the current rules are that for care cost purposes they disregard her share if you are living in the house. Before then they would probably put a charge on the house to redeem any equity when it was sold. Alternatively, you might be in a position to buy out her share if they tried to force you to sell. In fact it would be agood idea to plan to do this.

Your Mum would then be able to will her half of the house to you or anyone else if she did not need care.

As others have said putting it all in your name would be seen as deprivation of assets so you would need to be careful to be seen to be trransparent on this.

In theory tenants in common does not need to be 50-50. If you were putting in more money you might be able to justify a different proportion but not sure the seller would allow this.

BobQ

BottomRung wrote: »

Also if you have the money between you to buy the Council Property in cash, why not buy a private property as many others do? I always thought council properties were there for people that fell on hard times, or am I wrong?

Perhaps because they like the house and want to stay there!

Perhaps because the right to buy is just that. It does not say "the right to buy if you take out a mortgage".

In my previous post I mentioned pontification. The above quote is a good example:D

BottomRung

The problem I have is that council properties were always intended to help the less fortunate, which I have no issue with but when people live in these places, taking up space for people that need it, while saving a fortune in rent at the taxpayers expence and buy the property at a hefty discount it does rile me and i'm not ashamed to say it. Most people that buy their own homes after years of paying market rent and scrimping to get there have no savings whatsoever and just about scrape by.

Take my neigbour for instance. Mother 'splits' from father and leaves the council flat taking the 17 year old kid with her. Council give her and kid a flat which they stay in for just under a year. Woman surprisingly gets back together with husband and moves back into original council flat leaving kid with a nice 2 bedroom flat for very little money. Joke of a system.

Does it make me a little cynical about 'Right to Buy', Yes.

I think council houses should be there for people to use in times of hardship until they get back on their feet. Once they are able to afford a mortgage or private rent then they should be encouraged to do so, thus freeing up the house/flat for someone else in need. If someone has enough cash saved to be able to buy the council owned property outright they should be out of there and into the private market.

antrobus

BottomRung wrote: »

The problem I have is that council properties were always intended to help the less fortunate....

No they weren't. Council properties were orginally intended for working people, and there was a time when the 'less fortunate' couldn't afford them. But that's by the by and more appropriate for DT anyway.

steveo3002 wrote: »

i am on the tenancy - were both buying it but both would prefer it in my name as it will save hassle when the time comes

If you're name is on the tenancy and the property is your main home and you possess a right to buy, then you can exercise that right in your name only, so long as your mother agrees. At least that's my interpretation of what it says on the application form that I found here:-

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_069241.pdf

P.S. And then there'd be no problem with deprivation of assets, because the mother would never had an asset to deprive herself of.

ScotlandM

P.S. And then there'd be no problem with deprivation of assets, because the mother would never had an asset to deprive herself of.

If the mother pays any part of the deposit that would be the deprivation of asset. If the mother starts paying rent there may be a problem as it's an excouncil house.