Parents signing over house

Money_maker

If one went into a home then the other can continue to live in the house.


If you and your brother jointly owned it then it would become part of your marital assets if/when you married and there's any number of scenarios where your parents could be forced out of it.


There's no reason why their assets should not pay for their care, rather than asking the taxpayer to do so.

Pixie5740

There's no time limit for deprivation of assets. So whether your parents need care tomorrow or in 30 years time the council could still come after the property. The fact your parents would continue to live in the property after signing it over to you and your brother would scream deprivation of assets to the local authority.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

Money_maker wrote: »

There's no reason why their assets should not pay for their care, rather than asking the taxpayer to do so.

They are perfectly entitled to give away their assets.

chelseablue

Cakeguts wrote: »

Worst case. What would happen if you and your brother died before your mum? Would the people who inherited the house from you continue to let her live there or would they want to move her out? This is really a bad idea for your mum to do this.

Just to clarify, its my Mum and Dad, they both own it.


If I died it would go to my son who's still very young, but he could turn out to be an undesirable and kick them out (hopefully not!)


My brother has no children at the moment

POPPYOSCAR

Keep_pedalling wrote: »

This would be classed as deprivation of assets, and it could still need to be sold to pay any care costs. Even if you did get away with it would you really want her to have little or choice in what care home she could go to?

It would also be classed as a gift with reservation, so if IHT is also an issue then it would still form part of her estate.

If as is likely she never needs care then you could be hit with capital gains tax when you do come to sell it.

Not always.


I know of someone who signed their house over about 15 years ago and the NHS are funding their mother.


The family are topping it up because they want her to be in a particular home,


They still have the house.

Guest101

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Not always.


I know of someone who signed their house over about 15 years ago and the NHS are funding their mother.


The family are topping it up because they want her to be in a particular home,


They still have the house.

The NHS? The NHS don't fund social care though? Are you sure?

Person_one

chelseablue wrote: »

Thank you all.


My parents are in their 50's, still working, in good health so for example if they signed it over tomorrow it could be 30 years before they need any care.

Time isn't the deciding factor when it comes to deprivation of assets, its intention. Your parents would be signing over the house with the clear and stated intention of avoiding paying for care should they need it.

Pros:

• They won't have to pay for their care if they should need it when they are older.

Cons:

• They won't own their home anymore, so if something unexpected happens to the people who do own it (divorce, disability, redundancy, death, bankruptcy) then their home is at risk.
• If they ever do need to go into a care home, they won't have any choice in which one and will have to accept what they're given. What faith do you have in the care system that will exist 30 years in the future?
• The new owners of the house will have it counted as an asset for things such as mortgage applications, benefit claims, capital gains tax etc. They will also have all the responsibilities of being landlords but with no income from rent to fund that.
• You would all have to live with the guilt that you were fiddling your financial affairs to get as much out of the public purse as possible while giving as little back as you can get away with. It might not be on the scale of the Panama Papers, but its the same in ethical terms.

Your parents would only have to sell their house if neither of them were living in it anymore. Neither of them can be kicked out if they are joint owners, they could be potentially if you and brother were.

POPPYOSCAR

OP


You would be best to consult with a STEP solicitor.


Many of them will give a free 1/2 hour consultation.

Person_one

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Not always.


I know of someone who signed their house over about 15 years ago and the NHS are funding their mother.


The family are topping it up because they want her to be in a particular home,


They still have the house.

If the NHS are funding the care then it must have met the requirements for CHC and would not have been means tested at all.

john_white

Pixie5740 wrote: »

Who do your parents think should pay for their care in their old age if not themselves?

The taxpayer should. Why should some get paid for and not others.


Hopefully the Conservatives will put an end to this stupid rule that you have to pay for your own care simply because you choose to work.