Transfer of Equity?

Mr_Toad

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

I understand the bit about SS seeing it for what it is, but I'm genuinely confused about the difference between Transfer of Equity and making someone Tennants in Common?

If the OP has just retired, then hopefully it would be (might never need) many years before he'd need to go into a home, so if he was to do this now, then it might not be seen as deprecation of assets? Not saying he should do it, just trying to get my head round it.

If he were to do it and then at some point in the future need to go into care it would come to light when his assets were being assessed. Social Services would then go back and look at when he did it.

If that was 20 years ago or when the children were born it would be deemed as forward planning to spread assets and liability, you would even call it prudent. If they find he did it a few years ago it's no longer prudent long term planning but deprivation.

lostinrates

Toddy_Senior wrote: »

Hi Polly, having worked hard for the past 44 years until my retirement last December, I estimate that my income tax and national insurance contributions during that period were in excess of £300,000. I've hardly used the NHS and haven't been to jail so, to date, I don't believe you've helped me one iota. I'm not looking for people like you to pay for my potential care home costs, I'm simply dissatisfied with successive governments which take so much and give so little. Are you, for example, happy with a government which cuts police, army and NHS numbers by 20% but fails to do the same with its MP's and Lords? Having bought our house and paid off all our debts, why can't my wife and I pass on to our son a reasonable sum of money (£50,000, say)? I have nothing against care homes. My mum recently died in a very nice care home, having suffered from demetia for the past 12 years. We visited her each week but her fees were paid entirely by the local council because my mum and dad lived in a council house for the whole of their married life (56 years). My wife and I have saved hard to buy our own house but in future we may have to use it to pay for potential care home fees instead of being able to help our only son who, by the way, expects nothing from us. You of course feel this is entirely right but I find that your submissive acceptance of the way things are is disappointing. Do something useful Polly and put the kettle on.............!

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Yes it is.

But how do you know the OP doesn't gave other savings etc? I don't think it's been mentioned that he hadn't? You are just assuming.

See quoted post. Is it that unclear. He may well have other savings, I sincerely hope he does. But op feels his home is potentially needed to fund care, and that's what I am basing on. Seems fair:)

seven-day-weekend

lostinrates wrote: »

See quoted post. Is it that unclear. He may well have other savings, I sincerely hope he does. But op feels his home is potentially needed to fund care, and that's what I am basing on. Seems fair:)

The OP seems to think 'The Government' will take his home to fund care. What some of us have tried to show him is that this is not the case. 'The Government' do not take your home, there may well be other (legal and ethical) solutions to funding your care and that you may not even need residential care at all.

lostinrates

Mr_Toad wrote: »

If he were to do it and then at some point in the future need to go into care it would come to light when his assets were being assessed. Social Services would then go back and look at when he did it.

If that was 20 years ago or when the children were born it would be deemed as forward planning to spread assets and liability, you would even call it prudent. If they find he did it a few years ago it's no longer prudent long term planning but deprivation.

I have a very bad memory (relating to a neurological condition) and I am hesitant to raise this both because it rubs my morality the wrong way but also because I am not sure I have remembered correctly, but it could be i read a link Here that remarkably few of these situations have actually been acted upon or investigated or something:o. (Really dodgy memory). For me its not an issue. If my parents need their money for care, good, I hope it gives them choice and comfort.

We down&'the have children, and if we did I would consider my best gift to them my self providence. I have one parent living with me and another who is not so very far away and moving closer. I am positive that removing a burden or worry in today's pace of life is a blessing.

pollypenny

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

I understand the bit about SS seeing it for what it is, but I'm genuinely confused about the difference between Transfer of Equity and making someone Tennants in Common?
)

If I kick the bucket and OH marries, he won't be able to leave my half of the house to a new wife,or vice versa, thus depriving our children of an inheritance. That's the main reason for tenants in common.

mumps

pollypenny wrote: »

If I kick the bucket and OH marries, he won't be able to leave my half of the house to a new wife,or vice versa, thus depriving our children of an inheritance. That's the main reason for tenants in common.

I knew there was a reason. I think this came up for us as my father died when I was a child and step father stepped in and did nicely, dads business home etc. The joys of a toy boy step father!

Just realised the irony of it all, the money is now being spent on his care as he has dementia.

mumps

lostinrates wrote: »

I have a very bad memory (relating to a neurological condition) and I am hesitant to raise this both because it rubs my morality the wrong way but also because I am not sure I have remembered correctly, but it could be i read a link Here that remarkably few of these situations have actually been acted upon or investigated or something:o. (Really dodgy memory). For me its not an issue. If my parents need their money for care, good, I hope it gives them choice and comfort.

We down&'the have children, and if we did I would consider my best gift to them my self providence. I have one parent living with me and another who is not so very far away and moving closer. I am positive that removing a burden or worry in today's pace of life is a blessing.

Re the bit in bold, I thought I heard that as well but I can't think where.

mumps

Mr_Toad wrote: »

If he were to do it and then at some point in the future need to go into care it would come to light when his assets were being assessed. Social Services would then go back and look at when he did it.

If that was 20 years ago or when the children were born it would be deemed as forward planning to spread assets and liability, you would even call it prudent. If they find he did it a few years ago it's no longer prudent long term planning but deprivation.

But it could easily be 20 years before he needs care, if he ever needs it.

Georgiegirl256

pollypenny wrote: »

If I kick the bucket and OH marries, he won't be able to leave my half of the house to a new wife,or vice versa, thus depriving our children of an inheritance. That's the main reason for tenants in common.

Thanks, makes more sense now.

Toddy_Senior

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Thanks, makes more sense now.

Hi Georgiegirl256. I said that I wouldn't be returning to this website but thanks very much for your defence of my original request for information and your correct observation that I was simply getting back at those who'd had a go at me - a northern trait I'm particularly proud of! If it's any help, I apologise for any offence I caused - except to the idiot who suggested my wife and I should drop dead! Additionally, "Polly put the kettle on" was simply a line from the nursery rhyme and really wasn't intended to be sexist, nor was "Polly Wally Doodle". If nothing else, my original post and subsequent comments have highlighted the difference between Severance of Tenancy and Transfer of Equity so I guess we've all learned something useful. As I said right at the start, with a house worth only £150k and care home fees capped at £75k each, it's a worry that we might not be able to help our son, daughter-in-law and grandson (all of whom we love dearly) by being unable to leave them just the £23k allowed once house funds have been used up. I'd previously heard that this sum might be increased to £123k (and I'd be delighted with this, believe me!) but didn't see any comments on this part of my original post. My wife and I know that we may not have to go into a care home but, being a Yorkshireman, I'm hardly an optimist! Successive governments just pass the buck on this very delicate issue, preferring instead to offer budget bribes to get us to put them back in a place where they should never have been. I hope this explains my bad attitude towards MP's but thanks to all of you for your comments.
PS Sometimes a little humour is a good thing for us all.....:j