Giving house to Me!

BobQ

Joanne1971

Itys quite normal for a question of this kind to elicit a series of moral judgements. For every well meaning person who asks this kind of question, there is a devious so-in-so keen to secure their inheritance. Hence the reaction!

For what its worth my father had a similar attitude to the matter as yours. He wanted to gift me the house and for me to use it to top up the basic state provision, although in his case he did not go into a home so it was not an issue.

The simplest answer is the one already given, that transferring ownership when there is a potential need to move into a care home will be regarded as Deprivation of Assets, even if your father is judged competent to do that. Had your parents done this say 10 years ago then there would be little the authorities could do about it but now its too late.

The situation now will depend on when your Dad needs care and how long they both need care. As soon as your Dad goes into a care home your mother will be expected to use her share of the home to fund her care fees as will your Dad. If they both live long enough most of the value of the house will be consumed on this. It will depend in part on whether your parents home is owned jointly or as tenants in common and on what wills they have at the time of their deaths.

Perhaps an issue you may need to think about (and I do not know the answer) is that, as you are topping up your mothers fees, when your Dad goes into a home will you be able to do the same for him (assuming you would wish to do this)? Its nice to be in a position to have extra money to top up the standard of care but the first call on their assets will be the basic care.

zzzLazyDaisy

OP this fact sheet by Age UK should give you some understanding of the 'deprivation of assets' issue. Your problem is that your dad has already been diagnosed with a deteriorating illness which may require nursing care in a home in the future. It is too late to transfer assets in order to avoid care home fees.

getmore4less

A good way to preserve an "inheritance" is to care for the parent(s).

BobQ

getmore4less wrote: »

A good way to preserve an "inheritance" is to care for the parent(s).

True but not everyone has the option

phil.s_3

I hate it when people use the, 'well I have paid in to the system for years' excuse but I do kind of understand where you are coming from. Either way it is a little late as well. In fact far far too late.

When your mum and dad where in good health they could have done a. PPT.

As for signing the house over to you there are a few problems. One is that you are liable for inheritance tax for up to 7 years and always remember that the house becomes yours. If you get divorced then it forms part of your divorce settlement

gixer750

sod what alot of people put on here, they both worked hard and paid thier dues, its ok for them to say thats the way it is, but with barclays and starbucks and jimmy car paying less than 1% tax you should find everyway possible to screw the system and not let them take the house, start a ltd company and let ya dad invest his house in it and it goes bust,,,anything

troubleinparadise

You will need to seek the advice of a solicitor to determine whether your father's plan can be carried out legally (if he is judged to have capacity); the issue of deprivation of assets is another matter.

It is one of the unfairnesses of "the system" that care for many diseases is funded for all, but not with dementia, as it is regarded as a social need rather than a health need, and that if you have assets over £23,250 you have to pay for your care, whether at home or residential.

It may turn out that your father never needs residential care. The progression of his dementia may not lead to that. Or it may turn out that should he need residential care his problems qualify for continuing health care funding.

In either case, his financial assets in terms of his share of his house may not need to be utilised. In the meantime however, he may need care in his home, which as things stand he probably will have to pay for.

A downside of this arrangement is that there may be ill-feeling about the inequality of the resulting financial share that sadly might damage your relationship with your brother. As things stand, you have the opportunity to consider whether that is a price worth paying before any final decisions are made.

kidmugsy

joanne1971 wrote: »

but it is him that is truely upset at the idea of having to pay for care fee when as HE sees it others that have not worked and saved get it free.

The pre-1945 welfare state was designed to inhibit the behaviour that your father dislikes. That was changed in '45. And that's that, apparently.

BobQ

gixer750 wrote: »

sod what alot of people put on here, they both worked hard and paid thier dues, its ok for them to say thats the way it is, but with barclays and starbucks and jimmy car paying less than 1% tax you should find everyway possible to screw the system and not let them take the house, start a ltd company and let ya dad invest his house in it and it goes bust,,,anything

Very profound advice. Have you just returned from the pub?

sparrer

joanne1971 wrote: »

it is him that is truely upset at the idea of having to pay for care fee when as HE sees it others that have not worked and saved get it free.

That's a very blinkered attitude, I wonder if your father felt like that when he was well. I worked from the age of 15 until I was forced into early retirement on health grounds at 56. Also many thousands of people, including myself, have lost homes and or jobs in recessions, and for endless other reasons.

joanne1971 wrote: »

Yes I want the inheritance but who wouldn't,

My children. They're not selfish enough to want my money if it could pay for my care if and when the time comes. I've worked in the elderly care profession all my life so they understand what can befall people when they get old and unwell, and have seen many money-grabbing relatives try to keep savings or proceeds from the sale of properties for themselves.