Transfer of Equity?

margaretclare

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

Am I missing something here? What the OP is asking about and proposing to do is legal, so why all the abuse? I really don't understand all the extreme nastiness towards him.

I don't believe it IS legal. It comes under the heading of 'deliberate deprivation of assets'.

The OP has expressed a lot of extreme nastiness towards the rest of us who have tried to put him right. Making nasty cracks about our politics (about which he knows nothing), where we live (about which he knows even less), and making insulting sexist comments like 'go and put the kettle on'. The last time I ever heard a remark like that, and it was a long time ago when people thought differently, it was accompanied by 'don't bother your pretty little head'. The hearer reacted physically. The OP is at least safe from that in an anonymous internet forum. He should count himself fortunate.

Georgiegirl256

margaretclare wrote: »

I don't believe it IS legal. It comes under the heading of 'deliberate deprivation of assets'.

Of course it's legal. Although there's something to do with either 5 or 7 years I think! Can't remember the ins and outs of it.
The OP has expressed a lot of extreme nastiness towards the rest of us who have tried to put him right.
I agree, he has displayed nastiness, but IMO he can't be totally blamed and at fault, as a lot of people haven't tried to put him right, but rather just jumped on him. Making nasty cracks about our politics (about which he knows nothing), where we live (about which he knows even less), and making insulting sexist comments like 'go and put the kettle on'.I agree, there was no need for that. The last time I ever heard a remark like that, and it was a long time ago when people thought differently, it was accompanied by 'don't bother your pretty little head'. The hearer reacted physically. The OP is at least safe from that in an anonymous internet forum. He should count himself fortunate.

I agree that the OP hasn't handled it in the best way, but people just jumped on him, and he reacted defensively.

tea_lover

A quick search before posting would have answered the OPs questions - and shown that the forum isn't the best place to get advice about playing the system.

lostinrates

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

I agree that the OP hasn't handled it in the best way, but people just jumped on him, and he reacted defensively.

When people deprive themselves of assets in this way it costs everyone money, It takes from those who can afford to me provident but also from those who truly cannot and from whom the systems were set up to best protect. When people talk about 'greedy governments' in this context they forget the 'greedy governments' are the end users of the same services.....the elderly who perhaps haven't had same opportunities or skills, those with greater needs.

Its a form of fraud, deprivation of assets, which is just a sort of theft with expensively bought gloves on.

It does make people angry, because they, we, are being stolen from in this sort of scenario.

mumps

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

I agree that the OP hasn't handled it in the best way, but people just jumped on him, and he reacted defensively.

I think you are right. People ask a question, sometimes they haven't thought it through and a bit of education would be so much better than the way they attack.

For the people who think it has all been answered before why not just ignore it? You don't have to answer. Or you could just point out where the information is. No need for the sort of response many people employ.

People plan according to their own circumstances e.g. we own three houses, two will pass to our children on death of first partner. That leaves us with one house, if I am left as surviving partner then I would sell that and move somewhere smaller, I can't see the point of living in a 4 bedroom house by myself. I would give the surplus cash to children. Am I doing anything illegal? I don't think so. We are all entitled to plan as we think best.

margaretclare

It is of course quite possible to transfer equity in a property for a variety of reasons, divorce is one thing that springs to mind. There are many solicitors out there who will help with it. It involves changing names on the title documents. What the OP was asking about, though, was not so simple. A little Googling would have brought him the answer. I found this:

"Deliberate deprivation occurs when an individual transfers an asset out of his or her possession to put him or herself in a better position regarding the means test for care home accommodation."

This is from Factsheet 40 titled: 'Deprivation of assets in the means test for care home provision' published in April 2013 by AgeUK.

Given that the OP was foretelling a situation of needing a care home and putting in words of one syllable what he wanted, his opinion of governments etc, I think this can be construed as an illegal intention.

BTW not even my worst enemy would ever accuse me of being a Tory voter and all the rest of it. And I speak English, I don't use terms like 'innit'.

Georgiegirl256

lostinrates wrote: »

Its a form of fraud, deprivation of assets, which is just a sort of theft with expensively bought gloves on.

It does make people angry, because they, we, are being stolen from in this sort of scenario.

You are perfectly entitled to do it yourself if you so wished. Like I said, there's something to do with either 5 or 7 years, I can't remember what's it's called, I'm sure someone will be able to tell us the correct terminology for it.

I can totally see where you are coming from, but I can also see where the OP is coming from too. People who don't have any savings due to whatever reason, or don't have their own house for whatever reason (not saying that's a bad thing at all, just an example) get things paid for, but those who have saved all their lives....for what? What was the point if it just ends up going on something that if they didn't have any savings would get paid for? I've probably worded that terribly, but you hopefully get what I mean?

In other words, basically the OP is wanting to safeguard his house for his son, and no matter what people on their high horses here think, that is a perfectly legal thing to do.

lostinrates

Georgiegirl256 wrote: »

You are perfectly entitled to do it yourself if you so wished. Like I said, there's something to do with either 5 or 7 years, I can't remember what's it's called, I'm sure someone will be able to tell us the correct terminology for it.

I can totally see where you are coming from, but I can also see where the OP is coming from too. People who don't have any savings due to whatever reason, or don't have their own house for whatever reason (not saying that's a bad thing at all, just an example) get things paid for, but those who have saved all their lives....for what? What was the point if it just ends up going on something that if they didn't have any savings would get paid for? I've probably worded that terribly, but you hopefully get what I mean?

In other words, basically the OP is wanting to safeguard his house for his son, and no matter what people on their high horses here think, that is a perfectly legal thing to do.

It IS entirely legal to be generous, to be provident and to transfer assets. It is NOT considered acceptable to deprive oneself of assets.

There is a difference.

Georgiegirl256

lostinrates wrote: »

It IS entirely legal to be generous, to be provident and to transfer assets.

Which is exactly what I'm saying. To transfer assets across to say your partner or your children is perfectly legal. It's more complicated than say in the case of a divorce etc, but there are ways and means.

What the OP needs to do is to see a solicitor who can give him the best advice, and they can explain the ins and outs, and explain the pit falls of it. None of us on here can really advise fully.

mumps

margaretclare wrote: »

It is of course quite possible to transfer equity in a property for a variety of reasons, divorce is one thing that springs to mind. There are many solicitors out there who will help with it. It involves changing names on the title documents. What the OP was asking about, though, was not so simple. A little Googling would have brought him the answer. I found this:

"Deliberate deprivation occurs when an individual transfers an asset out of his or her possession to put him or herself in a better position regarding the means test for care home accommodation."

This is from Factsheet 40 titled: 'Deprivation of assets in the means test for care home provision' published in April 2013 by AgeUK.

Given that the OP was foretelling a situation of needing a care home and putting in words of one syllable what he wanted, his opinion of governments etc, I think this can be construed as an illegal intention.

BTW not even my worst enemy would ever accuse me of being a Tory voter and all the rest of it. And I speak English, I don't use terms like 'innit'.

Did I accuse you of being a Tory voter? I don't think so. What on earth has "innit" got to do with it? I have no idea what you are talking about, who mentioned "innit"?