Question on avoiding residential care costs

xylophone

If a spouse is still living in the house, its value has to be disregarded so the council couldn't put a charge on the house.

This point is covered in the first link cited in my post above.

But remember that not only spouses can own property as joint tenants or indeed as tenants in common.for example, a parent and child might do so. And that child might not be over 65 or a carer.

xylophone

Each person formerly had potentially the whole value. A transfer when a care need was clear is an invitation to a council to treat the change of ownership as if it had never happened. Whether this will happen will depend on the council and whether it thinks it can successfully argue that the purpose of the chance was to avoid paying for care.

The council would have to demonstrate that a clear intention to obtain or increase benefits was the primary purpose of the change of tenancy?

And since it could always be demonstrated that the primary reason to take such a course was related to IHT or to the desire to nominate a particular beneficiary on the death of the first to die, this would be very difficult?