Signing a house over to a child

Cheeky_Monkey

With the details in the OP, I think the 'child' is unlikely to be a minor!

getmore4less

What are the terms of the current debt

if it is pay back the full purchase value then you may only have to do the legal transfer as you are in effect the legal owner holding the property on a bare trust with him as the beneficial owner allready.

Marvel1

xylophone wrote: »

The OP doesn't say that he took out any kind of mortgage to purchase the property.

He says only that he bought the house for his son.

He might have paid cash.

He mentions the "monthly equivalent of rent" but this arrangement seems more like a private mortgage where the OP is the mortgagee.

If all this is the case, the OP could see a solicitor to arrange the transfer of the house against an interest free loan and a first charge on the property.

He would need to check any CGT liability.

If he had to go into a home, he could not be considered to have deprived himself of assets - he still has an asset in the form of a charge on the property and the regular loan repayments which would continue to be paid to him even if in a home.

The solicitor would also advise on the situation with regard to the OP's will to cover the situation if he died before the loan was repaid.

Presumably the son could take out insurance to cover the loan repayment should he predecease his parent before the loan was repaid.

It could be the Mother sorry couldn't resist.

DigForVictory

Thank you! Us mums are easily overlooked...

Sorry OP, but +1 for professional advice as the whole "deprivation of assets" waltz has Fangs.
Also +1 for an insurance policy to repay remaining should you unexpectedly predecease the loan.

All luck to you & your fortunate son!

antrobus

Wolverwanderer wrote: »

Thanks.....does anyone have any experience of how far back local authorities look?...

There is no time limit.

But more to the point, what is your state of health?

Deprivation of assets means where a person has intentionally deprived or decreased their overall assets in order to reduce the amount they are charged towards their care. This means that they must have known that they needed care and support and have reduced their assets in order to reduce the contribution they are asked to make towards the cost of that care and support.

and furthermore;

it would be unreasonable to decide that a person had disposed of an asset in order to reduce the level of charges for their care and support needs if at the time the disposal took place they were fit and healthy and could not have foreseen the need for care and support.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/366104/43380_23902777_Care_Act_Book.pdf

Therefore if you are fit and healthy and do not forsee any future need for care, you can stop worrying about deprivation of assets.

Wolverwanderer wrote: »

...But no tax implications for me or my son?

If it is indeed the case that the house has not gone up in value much since you bought it, probably not. But it would be wise to get an actual valuation of the property completed to confirm the numbers. You have an annual tax-free allowance of £11,100 for capital gains; anything over that and tax will be due.

xylophone

could be the Mother sorry couldn't resist.

Indeed it could and I could have used "parent" - however, the default position is usually the masculine noun...:)

getmore4less

IT helps if there are other good reasons for the disposal so deprivation drops down the list.

removing assets from estate for tax reasons.
Providing a family member with accomodation.
leaving yourself with reasonable assets.

Thing is if the son is paying for the place a bit at a time(and the agreement was to pay for all of it) there is no deprivation.