Care costs

p00hsticks

anexuser wrote: »

How do you know from the land registry information whether or not it is tenants in common or joint tenants?

Look at the link I provided in post #2, which explains it.

Briefly, you look for a clause which says something like;

No disposition by a sole proprietor of the registered estate (except a trust corporation) under whcih capital money arises is to be registered unless aoutorised by an order of the court

If there's such a clause present, it's owned as tenants-in-common, if there's no such clause it's owned as joint tenants.

TBagpuss

OP, your mum can sever the joint tenancy on the proeprty if it is not already hheld by her and your dad as tenants in common.

You can reassure her that this means that you and your siblings will inherit her half.

If, after she dies, it turns out that this is treated as deprivation of assets and that her share is clawed back from you then your mum will not know.

I am not sure that deprivation of assets would apply as your mum can unilaterally sever the joint tenancy, so if she were the first to go you dad has not deprived himself of assets, but as long as you and your siblings get some adfice about where stand before spending any of the money after she passes, you have nothing to lose by her severing the joint tenacy, and eveything to gain, as it will give her peace of mind and the reassurance she needs.

When she and your dad last reviewed their wills, it may have been discussed, but like most things, there are always pros and cons so they may not have cosento change how they owned the property at that time.

Savvy_Sue

It is also worth asking what Step-Dad's prognosis is? If mum is worried all the proceeds of the house will go to his care, how realistic is that?

pmlindyloo

And also check to see if the property has been placed 'in trust'. The papers should be with the wills.

securityguy

Mojisola wrote: »

I don't see how one joint tenant could claim to own more than 50% of a property.

Unmarried couple where one of them was the main breadwinner? Second marriage (as in this case) where one person brought more than 50% to the table? Married couple where one of them used an inheritance to pay the deposit?

If a couple didn't own the property equally, they would have been tenants in common from the beginning.

They could equally well hold it as joint tenants with a side-letter, which simplifies matters in the case of death (and takes it out of inheritance tax if they are unmarried) and has little effect otherwise. It depends on a whole stack of issues about how many children they have, whether they want to see assets going to siblings, etc, etc.

securityguy

troubleinparadise wrote: »

Security Guy - can you reference where you got your information from re deprivation of assets and changing to tenants in common?

The Gov UK site suggests this is acceptable even if the original joint tenant is unable or does not wish to agree to the change to tenants in common.

I can't find a reference immediately, but I am pretty sure that the argument advanced was that the value of a share is a matter for negotiation and that negotiation is potentially deprivation. I'd be happy to be shown I am wrong (I have some skin in this game), but I don't think the mere fact that joint tenancies are severable by one party is enough.

A financial assessment is usually only based on the person being assessed's assets at that time.

Indeed, but subsequent to the death of a spouse there will be a reassessment, because the house is now saleable (previously it could not be sold, as there was another occupant with a right to remain there). The sequence would run "you had a house JT, your spouse has died, you should have X, you transferred it to TIC subsequent to entering care where the need to fund care was obvious and immediate, now you only have half-X, the transfer was artificial as had you really wanted it TIC, you would have done it earlier". They might also ask rather awkward questions about who initiated the severance (what the Americans call "the guiding mind").

I get that joint tenancies are severable by either party, but DOA actions are able to look behind transactions and ask "qui bono?" And if the main beneficiary of the transaction is the residual legatees, as in this case, the transaction passes all sorts of tests for being artificial. Certainly, I would argue that if such a transaction was done by a residual legatee who was also a power of attorney for one of the parties the CoP would come down on them like a tonne of bricks, as the only beneficiary of it is the legatees.

If it's the case that one party can sever a joint tenancy at any time, that the ownership goes 50/50, and there is then no DOA issue, why are all these exotic "family protection trusts" and so on out there? It seems like there's a far simpler solution: wait until one party actually goes into care, then sever the joint tenancy (which costs buttons) and the problem is in large part sorted.

As I say, I'd be very happy to learn I've been misinformed...

Yorkshireman99

Reference the last paragraph there are a number of sharks pedaling these schemes. Many, if not all, of them will not actually protect the assets as the rules about asset deprivation are widely drawn. Planning of this kind needs to be done years in advance.

margaretclare

As long as your Mum needs the house to live in it cannot be sold.

dancingfairy

A quick google of capital disregards for care came up with a .gov link to CRAG. Section 6 deals with capital and it suggest that over about 23k you pay full fees, under about 14k I think it's fully funded and in between there's a sliding scale. Therefore if your mum died first and if the house was sold I believe your dad would be self funding until the capital fell below 24k.
I assume that the link is correct as the website is .gov .
There is also something called a 12 week disregard which can help with fees in the 12 weeks whilst the property is on the market ( I think this is, in effect a loan against the property).
It might be worth getting in touch with one of the age charities to discuss benefit entitlement/ care home fees etc.
Best wishes
Df

anexuser

Thanks everyone for your replies and your best wishes.
I thought I had asked a relatively straightforward question - little did I know how complicated it really is!

It appears from the details obtained from LR that the house is held as joint tenants.
I am tempted to suggest to Mum that she severs the joint tenancy and as TBagpuss says if it is later decided that this is depravation of assets then so be it - nobody is any worse off.

If this is what we decide, how easy is it to do and how long does it take?