Declaration of Trust - Care home costs

Forward27

AdrianC wrote: »

So that's a "yes" to the deprivation question...

Were they joint tenants or tenants-in-common?

All the remaining relatives are registered owners on the deeds.

Forward27

DTDfanBoy wrote: »

Surely you'd want to sell the house to ensure your Grandfather has a good level of care in his last few years

A state funded care home is a place of last resort, if my children placed me in one to maximise their inheritance they'd be in for a quite a shock at the will reading :beer:

The Grandparents put the DOT in place to stop the Local authorities getting there hands on all of the house to pay for care costs if it was ever to happen.

The Grandfather is now in a really nice 'state' care home. If his level of care was being compromised then of course the family would act on his behalf accordingly. But, I do see your point if this was the families original intentions to maximize their inheritance!

AdrianC

Forward27 wrote: »

All the remaining relatives are registered owners on the deeds.

ITYM with the Land Registry, but that doesn't answer the question. Before they decided to put the property into trust, were they JT or TiC?

Forward27 wrote: »

The Grandparents put the DOT in place to stop the Local authorities getting there hands on all of the house to pay for care costs if it was ever to happen.

...I do see your point if this was the families original intentions to maximize their inheritance!

<scratches head>

G_M

This sounds like 'deprivation of assets'.

Obviously, when an elderly person/couple sees the need for a care home looming (or their relatives do), and by 'looming' I mean at some indeterminate time in the future, it is common sense to give away all assets to the family, so as to bring themelves down below the threshold for Local authority care support (around £20K I think).

If that were possible, we would ALL do it, and the LA would end up having to fund everyone, and go rapidly bankrupt.

The deprivation of assets rules are there to ensure that rich(er) people, who can afford to fund their own care, do not do this.

If they give away assets deliberately to avoid self-funding, those assets can be clawed back, so yes:

• Are they allowed to force the sale of the house without permission of the other owners. - yes (by following correct procedure)
• Can the Local Authority have access to all the sale proceeds even though the property has 4 remaining registered owners with equal shares? Yes
• Whats options do the daughter and two granddaughters have?

The options are to
* sell the property and fund the care from the proceeds or
* fund the care from other funds and keep the property

Forward27

AdrianC wrote: »

ITYM with the Land Registry, but that doesn't answer the question. Before they decided to put the property into trust, were they JT or TiC?



<scratches head>

The Grandparents were joint owners.

kingstreet

A carefully constructed Family Estate Plan would see the joint tenancy severed and a pair of trusts and wills drawn up on a tenants in common basis to avoid the situation the OP appears to be describing.

If this was done properly, there can be no question there was "a foreseeable need for care" at the time this was done, so the FEP should be watertight.

Once again, the OP should ask the writer of the FEP for advice.

xylophone

The Grandparents put the DOT in place to stop the Local authorities getting there hands on all of the house to pay for care costs if it was ever to happen.

This was the intention? Read the Age UK link with care....

Forward27

G_M wrote: »

This sounds like 'deprivation of assets'.

Obviously, when an elderly person/couple sees the need for a care home looming (or their relatives do), and by 'looming' I mean at some indeterminate time in the future, it is common sense to give away all assets to the family, so as to bring themelves down below the threshold for Local authority care support (around £20K I think).

If that were possible, we would ALL do it, and the LA would end up having to fund everyone, and go rapidly bankrupt.

The deprivation of assets rules are there to ensure that rich(er) people, who can afford to fund their own care, do not do this.

If they give away assets deliberately to avoid self-funding, those assets can be clawed back, so yes:


The options are to
* sell the property and fund the care from the proceeds or
* fund the care from other funds and keep the property

Its a shame if thats the case. They wanted to pass something down to the family rather than see the government claw back all there remaining assets. I will let you know regardless how it develops!

Pixie5740

How else would it be funded? The tax payer? People are living longer which means more people with dementia. Future generations have already been mortgaged up to the hilt by their predecessors.


I all for the abolition of inheritance but that's another thread for another board.

G_M

Forward27 wrote: »

Its a shame if thats the case. They wanted to pass something down to the family rather than see the government claw back all there remaining assets. I will let you know regardless how it develops!

A shame? Yes. All families would like this.

But local authrority funding of care homes etc is not limitless. Indeed as we all know, LA funding is stretched beyond breaking point at present, and due to get worse.

The intention (rightly or wrongly, morally or immorally) is to ensure the poorest and neediest in society are not left totally uncared for.

It is not intended that LAs pay for care homes for all. Nor is it possible, without massive (and I mean massive) tax increases.