How can I sign a house over to my son?

Savvy_Sue

welcome jimjog. dla is not means tested so that wouldn't change. CT benefit is means tested, so would their income change?

there are all sorts of other issues here, so I hope you want to do right by your parents as much as they want to do right by you.

if they sign the house over to you, and then need residential care, that could be seen as deprivation of assets. if one of them needs care, the other can't be forced to sell the house if it's theirs, not so sure if it's been signed over but the derivation thing kicks in. if they don't pay you rent, then I believe you may be liable to Capital Gains Tax when you sell the house if it wasn't your primary residence. there could be inheritance tax issues. who will be responsible for maintenance? what happens if you go bankrupt? or if you're married and then divorce? in both those cases I believe their home will feature in your list of assets - happy to see half go to your creditors or your ex, who might then be impatient for a sale?

IMO it's usually best for parents to hang on to their homes and hard earned assets and use them to provide for their needs over time, rather than have to come cap in hand to ask for help with carers, care home fees, repairs etc. when they're dead is the time to pass on what's left to whoever or whatever they like.

btw, I think you'll find useful info from Counsel and Care and Age UK

Trebor16

The issue with deprivation of assets relates to the health of a person when they make the decision to pass on their assets to someone else. If they are in good health when they make the decision with no possibility of needing any form of care then it would be very difficult for a local authority to challenge such a decision should the persons health then start to deteriorate at a later date. No doubt they would try but if the health of the person at the time they made the decision has been properly documented and it is only some time after that their health starts to fail then it is not as clear cut for the local authority to challenge as some of the posters in this thread seem to think.

Oldernotwiser

Trebor16 wrote: »

The issue with deprivation of assets relates to the health of a person when they make the decision to pass on their assets to someone else. If they are in good health when they make the decision with no possibility of needing any form of care then it would be very difficult for a local authority to challenge such a decision should the persons health then start to deteriorate at a later date. No doubt they would try but if the health of the person at the time they made the decision has been properly documented and it is only some time after that their health starts to fail then it is not as clear cut for the local authority to challenge as some of the posters in this thread seem to think.

It rather depends how old you are, don't you think? It might well be true for someone in her 60s (who could reasonably expect to have many more years of decent health) but rather less true for someone in her mid 80s.

Savvy_Sue

Trebor may well be right, BUT since people are usually considering this because they want to be able to safeguard the house as part of the inheritance to be passed onto the next generation, I can't help feeling that the possibility of deprivation of assets is always niggling away in the background.

And even if deprivation of assets is discounted, the other issues I raised remain very real.

savvyme_4

Mojisola wrote: »

Why should the taxpayer pay for her care just so her son could inherit a lot of money?

Because people that have worked all their lives, have saved their money for years and years and have paid a mortgage, maybe sacrificing holidays etc., why shouldn't their well earned savings etc. go to whoever they want it to, ie their children, grandchildren etc. if they wish. Those of us who work hard and pay taxes and national insurance should have our care paid for by the State. Also don't forget this generation of elderly people have survived a war (my parents for instance)!! People that don't work get more help!! When you reach old age and perhaps if you have then got savings, where would you like it to be? sucked up in care (maybe nursing care) which is roughly £1,000 per week? I don't think so!! You will change your mind then!

dzug1

savvyme wrote: »

Because people that have worked all their lives, have saved their money for years and years and have paid a mortgage, maybe sacrificing holidays etc., why shouldn't their well earned savings etc. go to whoever they want it to, ie their children, grandchildren etc. if they wish. Those of us who work hard and pay taxes and national insurance should have our care paid for by the State. Also don't forget this generation of elderly people have survived a war (my parents for instance)!! People that don't work get more help!! When you reach old age and perhaps if you have then got savings, where would you like it to be? sucked up in care (maybe nursing care) which is roughly £1,000 per week? I don't think so!! You will change your mind then!

OK to put a bit of a slant on it: The 'State' equals you and me. Why should I pay taxes to subsidise pensioners who are by any reasonable definition 'rich' just so they can pass on assets to their ne'er do well kids and grandsprogs. The fact that they worked hard to become 'rich' is irrelevant.

savvyme_4

dzug1 wrote: »

OK to put a bit of a slant on it: The 'State' equals you and me. Why should I pay taxes to subsidise pensioners who are by any reasonable definition 'rich' just so they can pass on assets to their ne'er do well kids and grandsprogs. The fact that they worked hard to become 'rich' is irrelevant.

My parents who are now both 86 have gone without luxuries (ie they didn't have central heating, run a car or go on holidays abroad etc etc) all their lives, to struggle to pay a mortgage, both working hard and paying tax & national insurance. Also they survived a war and their parents brought them up in poverty (real poverty). A lot of people of their generation saved for "old age" and went without themselves. Why shouldn't they choose where their hard earned cash goes ie to their children or grandchildren. It should be their choice. Others who do not work or who have never worked or have spanked their cash on luxuries have the benefit of their care paid for (by taxpayers). I do not begrudge this as our elderly folk, whether they have worked or not, need to be cared for. After all it if wasn't for them we would'nt have a better standard of living now.

I wonder how you would feel when you reach this age and have some savings. Would you like to be spending between £500 to £1000 per week on your care or would you feel that it should be paid for as you have worked, paid tax and saved it whilst others have it paid for them?

When you go into these homes, you realise it's not nice to become old and frail. We don't think about these things when we are young but when your parents reach old age and have to go into care it opens your eyes, not only from an emotional decision point of view, but also as to how much it costs!

Errata

I do not begrudge this as our elderly folk, whether they have worked or not, need to be cared for

Exactly, which is why those who can pay for their care do so, and those who can't are supported by the state.

savvyme_4

dzug1 wrote: »

OK to put a bit of a slant on it: The 'State' equals you and me. Why should I pay taxes to subsidise pensioners who are by any reasonable definition 'rich' just so they can pass on assets to their ne'er do well kids and grandsprogs. The fact that they worked hard to become 'rich' is irrelevant.

You have answered your own question. You will be a pensioner one day!! Who will pay for you??

Also how do you define "rich".

savvyme_4

Errata wrote: »

Exactly, which is why those who can pay for their care do so, and those who can't are supported by the state.

It's not worth saving any money... spend it is my motto!!;)