Signing Over Home to Children

[Deleted User]

It's a very tricky area and changing all the time. I don't know about the 6 months limit - I know someone whose mother signed her house over to her 3 years before she needed care and she was STILL deemed to have deliberately deprived herself of assets, so don't rely on that guideline.

If your mother made a will leaving the house to you, and, in the meantime, the ownership of the house was changed to being jointly owned between you, that may be a better solution for a number of reasons. Firstly it would avoid the above (although if you're willing to take on caring for her, it doesn't matter). Secondly, you don't say if you're married (and if not, you could be in the future). If you own ALL of the house and a divorce happens, there's nothing to stop your husband claiming half the house. If you only own half of it, as Tenants in Common - which means you each own a share of the house, then your half is essentially worthless, because your mother owns the other half, and he couldn't claim it (this was explained to me by a solicitor). Thirdly, if you're not prepared to take on the care of your mother, if she needs it in the future, then if she needs residential care they still can't take it into account because of the Tenants in Common limitations (above).

If I was in your situation I would take nothing for granted and get some legal advice. I paid for some recently (on a different matter) and am really glad I did because it threw up a potential problem I wasn't aware of and which could have scuppered my plans. A good investment.

Trebor16

Corona wrote: »

It's a very tricky area and changing all the time. I don't know about the 6 months limit - I know someone whose mother signed her house over to her 3 years before she needed care and she was STILL deemed to have deliberately deprived herself of assets, so don't rely on that guideline.

I wonder how far they went with challenging that decision with the council and also what evidence the council relied on to deem there was a deliberate deprivation of assets? Do you know any more about the case?

antrobus

Trebor16 wrote: »

.....Section 21 of the Health and Social Services and Social Security Adjudications Act 1983 limits the time that a local authority can recover an asset from the person it was transferred to. ....

The six month limit only applies to that particular power of recovery. There is no set time limit beyond which a LA is obliged to ignore a transfer of assets if that transfer was done with the intention of avoiding care home charges.

Or to put it another way, the LA can't recover the asset from the transferee, but they can however assess the transferor as if they still had the asset, bill them for the costs, and if they don't pay up, make them bankrupt, and use the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 to recover the money from the transferee. That has happened.

Trebor16

antrobus wrote: »

The six month limit only applies to that particular power of recovery. There is no set time limit beyond which a LA is obliged to ignore a transfer of assets if that transfer was done with the intention of avoiding care home charges.

Or to put it another way, the LA can't recover the asset from the transferee, but they can however assess the transferor as if they still had the asset, bill them for the costs, and if they don't pay up, make them bankrupt, and use the provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 to recover the money from the transferee. That has happened.

Do you have a link to when it has happened by any chance? And which provisions of the Insolvency Act would allow a LA to recover money from a transferee?

anamenottaken

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

I'd add to the issues for hotchoc to consider:
-What would happen if you became unwell or unemployed and needed to claim benefits? Owning a house you didn't live in would rule you ineligible for any of the means-tested ones, even if you weren't receiving any income and couldn't realise the capital.

Only guessing here but, as the OP is able to pay off mortgage outright, then whether the assets are in a house or in a bank account, he would not get means-tested benefits in any case.

Savvy_Sue

anamenottaken wrote: »

Only guessing here but, as the OP is able to pay off mortgage outright, then whether the assets are in a house or in a bank account, he would not get means-tested benefits in any case.

True enough, but my point was not that the OP wouldn't be able to claim means-tested benefits so much as that if the assets are in a house, they are not easily liquidated.

There was a thread elsewhere a while ago, where someone was in great hardship because couldn't claim means-tested benefits, because had part ownership of a house. If the cash is in the bank, you can spend it. If it's in a house in which Mother is living, you can't.

Linton

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

True enough, but my point was not that the OP wouldn't be able to claim means-tested benefits so much as that if the assets are in a house, they are not easily liquidated.

There was a thread elsewhere a while ago, where someone was in great hardship because couldn't claim means-tested benefits, because had part ownership of a house. If the cash is in the bank, you can spend it. If it's in a house in which Mother is living, you can't.

The problem for Mother is that you can and the poor old lady is out on the streets.

Savvy_Sue

Linton wrote: »

The problem for Mother is that you can and the poor old lady is out on the streets.

OK, you can. However - and this remains my point! - that if money is tied up in a house, it's a heck of a lot more difficult to use it, especially if there is someone living in the house to whom one might owe a duty of care and / or affection.

The benefits system won't take that into account, however. You have the assets, on paper. The (not unreasonable) expectation is that you should use them.

We may have lost the OP, however ...

It still remains a situation where both parties should take expert advice.

yangptangkipperbang

Trebor16 wrote: »

They can dig as deep as they like but they know damn well that if a person is in good health when they sign assets over that proving it was deliberate deprivation of assets is not easy.

They would appear to know differently now..............
They were interviewing a Lawyer on Radio 4 the other day on this subject; He was saying that the latest "clamp down" by Local Authorities on this has come about from a re-interpretation of the Law.
He went on to say that the act of just going to a Solicitor to draw up a trust or carry out some other manoeuvre is now deemed to be sufficient to be classed as "deliberate" - he advised extreme caution before embarking on something like this.

Trebor16

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

They would appear to know differently now..............
They were interviewing a Lawyer on Radio 4 the other day on this subject; He was saying that the latest "clamp down" by Local Authorities on this has come about from a re-interpretation of the Law.
He went on to say that the act of just going to a Solicitor to draw up a trust or carry out some other manoeuvre is now deemed to be sufficient to be classed as "deliberate" - he advised extreme caution before embarking on something like this.

Of course it's a deliberate act but the question remains - is it deprivation? They can re-interpret the law as much as they like but it won't change the law. The local authorities seem to think they are above the law and such behaviour by them amounts to bullying and harassment, nothing more.