Protective Property Trusts, I Think ?


I have probably posted this in the wrong place but I'm hoping someone can point me in the right direction.

My 83 yr old mother owns a lease hold property, which she bought with the proceeds of the house she bought with my father, after he died, but they had been divorced for a number of years beforehand.

She's looking to pass the property on to me and my brother, but it's increasingly looking like she may have to go into care, is there a way of protecting the property from costs of care ?, I mean she worked and paid tax until she was 74, and doesn't want to be handing everything she's worked to keep back to the state.

I did look at protective property trusts, but I'm not sure if she would either be eligible or if it would be the wrong thing to do, as without searching pages of ad's I couldn't really find a "Low Down" explanation on these trusts or any other solutions to this predicament.

Any help would be gratefully received.
Many Thanks


  • cte1111
    cte1111 Posts: 7,390 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    This may well be seen as deprivation of capital, here's some more information from Age UK on the subject:
  • Biggles
    Biggles Posts: 8,209 Forumite
    Combo Breaker First Post
    This is a commonly asked question on here - search the forum for 'deprivation' and you'll see.

    You'll find that it's generally disapproved of for the same reason as 'tax avoidance' is.
  • John_Pierpoint
    John_Pierpoint Posts: 8,391 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    edited 18 August 2013 at 8:33AM
    It is like something out of "Catch 22". Your lawyer has to dream up legitimate reasons for creating the trust, were he to write "to avoid paying care home fees" that turns fee avoidance into fee evasion.
    Similarly if a commercial transaction has no profit making logic other than saving tax, it can be set aside when assessing the tax due.
  • pollypenny
    pollypenny Posts: 29,393 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    While she was working and paying tax, she was paying for those who managed to evade paying for their care, in spite of having the funds to do so.

    If she doesn't pay for her care, we tax payers pay for it. We are the 'state'.

    Anyway, paying for her own care will give her more choice.
    Member #14 of SKI-ers club

    Words, words, they're all we have to go by!.

    (Pity they are mangled by this autocorrect!)
  • zygurat789
    zygurat789 Posts: 4,263 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    The way to look at it is that if an old person does not pay for her food and accommodation in a retirement home then the rest of us, the state, has to pick up the bill. If the old person does not have the money to pay for the required facilities then the state picks up the tab, that's the welfare state, but if the old person does have the money why should they not pay? After all they are in receipt of a state pension.
    We all know where the OP is coming from, the people who have spent all their money and not saved are, once again, being given what they should have been saving themselves.
    At least the ones who spent it all on booze and fags won't be around for too long and for the others that are still around, well perhaps they really have been poor and needy all their lives, some are.
    The only thing that is constant is change.
  • margaretclare
    margaretclare Posts: 10,789 Forumite
    The word that crops up constantly in this type of enquiry, what we see on here all the time, is the word 'protect'. This word just gets to me. It implies a threat, something to be feared. Protect against, who, what, for whom, for what purpose? I can't see why it constitutes a threat, that someone may be asked to pay for legitimate goods and/or services for costs which they may incur.
    [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Æ[/FONT]r ic wisdom funde, [FONT=Times New Roman, serif]æ[/FONT]r wear[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]ð[/FONT] ic eald.
    Before I found wisdom, I became old.
  • John_Pierpoint
    John_Pierpoint Posts: 8,391 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    edited 19 August 2013 at 1:44AM
    Is there a difference between income and capital ?
    HMRC thinks there is.
    Most successful businessmen think there is - they always bang on about how the first £x is the most difficult to raise.
    Those with no capital, who stagger from one Wonga loan to the next, because they have no capital reserve, know that there is..

    Whether we like it or not we live in a Capitalist world now. Those countries who decided the state should be the sole owner and director of capital have failed.
    [We live in a state where only some 40 - 50% of the economy is state directed].
    The sudden return of capitalist exploitation to such states, has been pretty unpleasant for large numbers of "the proles".

    A family, where the members can support each other, because the have built up a kernel of capital, is a family whose members have options in their lives, especially in a world where most of its globalised population have no capital and are constantly but a few steps away from exploitation or starvation.

    If you want an example of a family with a kernel of capital, look no further than the present mum in the headlines, Kate ne Middleton.
    Delve backwards into the Middleton's and before long you can find stories of work in jam factories and carpentry in coal mines; but I am willing to bet that a kernel of capital flowing from generations of lawyers and something to do with wool trading in Yorkshire, has much to do with making Kate the woman she now is.

    There are some people from a socialist background, who don't understand the importance of intergenerational capital. There are others who only too well recognise its importance, that was the realisation behind Gordon Brown's flawed attempt to create families what could look further than short term maximisation via consumerist gratification, when he created the Child Trust fund.

    Ageing people realising everything they have tried to create during a life time of effort is going to be subject to a compulsory unmitigated levy, in their final years (that is the definition of a tax) naturally don't like it and try to avoid it.

    This tax is particularly tough on those who have a kernel of capital passed down from generations of effort, such as small farmers.

    Sorry for the philosophical ramblings but I am just trying to explain the motivations of those who find the "they have saved it, now let us spend it" advice difficult to swallow.
  • pollypenny
    pollypenny Posts: 29,393 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary First Post
    Whilst I like your post, John, the last sentence doesn't apply to we who object to paying for care in certain cases.

    I would like to leave an inheritance for my two. However, I don't expect other tax payers to pay for that inheritance, should I need care.
    Member #14 of SKI-ers club

    Words, words, they're all we have to go by!.

    (Pity they are mangled by this autocorrect!)
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors


  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards