Advice on my father's will

Mojisola

securityguy wrote: »

Again, while we're discussing things.

I thought the point about deprivation of capital was that not only do you have to have given it away (or been party to not receiving it in the first place), there has to be evidence that placing yourself into a better position for benefits was a significant part of your reason for doing so. That's an inevitably subjective test, but given the threshold for council funding is only about £23k, it far more arguable if you have reduced your capital from £50k to £20k than if you have reduced your capital from £500k to £200k. If someone is currently in good health, it's going to be extraordinarily difficult to show that they reasonably were obliged to budget for multiple years in care. The cases one reads about where deprivation is shown involve people whose assets are near the threshold and who are clearly likely to go into care. Otherwise, people who take a cruise out of their lump sum on retirement at 65 could be accused of deprivation of capital if they need residential care at 80, which would be ludicrous.

I think you're right but it's always best to tell people about DOC in case they don't know. It doesn't only apply to paying for residential care - it can be raised if means tested benefits are applied for as well after giving away a substantial sum.

Crabapple

Realistically they aren't going to look back very far, no. Deprivation is a bit of a weird subject because we can't know exactly what the 'rules' applied are.

Certainly a person in good health and fairly young can't be expected to retain every penny they have just in case they end up in care, and in care for a substantial period of time. However, if a person is already in ill-health, or decides to divest themselves of substantial assets as they get older and leave themselves with very little, it may set bells ringing if they then have to be assessed for care or benefits.

It doesn't seem to be the case here. But maybe a legal deed by the executors and beneficiaires making the transfer in effect a gift under the will, rather than a gift personally by the mother would be belt and braces?

getmore4less wrote: »

Because there is no IHT a DOV(which is an IHT avoidance tool) could be seen as an attempt to hide assets.

agree as long as the mum if healthy enough then the assets she has left are probably sufficient.

Drifting a bit but I cannot see the need for the expense of a DOV that the solicitor that has already charged 750 for doing what exactly is recommending?

I don't think it could be seen as an attempt to hide anything if it is all being put in writing and signed as a deed by several parties.

We don't know what they suggested they will charge for a DoV, could be very little, and I guess it's up to the op's family if they want to pay anything more. £750 for collecting the asset and liability details and preparing and submitting the application plus advice to the Executors as required sounds pretty reasonable for a solicitor to charge. I'm not saying that people can't do it themselves for a lot less, but it's a realistic figure if they choose to employ a solicitor.

Mojisola

Crabapple wrote: »

It doesn't seem to be the case here. But maybe a legal deed by the executors and beneficiaires making the transfer in effect a gift under the will, rather than a gift personally by the mother would be belt and braces?

I don't think it would be an issue here but doing a deed of variation wouldn't be a solution in a situation where giving away the money might be questioned.

It doesn't matter whether you have the money in your account and give it away or sign a deed to give your inheritance to someone else - you would still be giving the money away.