Council selling child's house to pay for care.

Mojisola

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

It is a question of proof. It might well be done for IHT planning purposes.

If the parent continued to live in the house, it wouldn't help with IHT planning - unless the parent was paying rent.

Yorkshireman99

Mojisola wrote: »

If the parent continued to live in the house, it wouldn't help with IHT planning - unless the parent was paying rent.

Which would be quite legitimate. The issue is would this amount to deprivation of assets for care costs purposes.

cosmic4z

Thank you all for your replies and opinions so far.

Would a parent transferring assets to a child, also negate the need for a will, probate etc?

Tuesday_Tenor

cosmic4z wrote: »

Thank you all for your replies and opinions so far.

Would a parent transferring assets to a child, also negate the need for a will, probate etc?

There are many issues for a parent considering transferring ownership of their home to a child.

- Where are they going to live? Once child owns house, they can sell it or do whatever they like with it. Even if the intention is for parent to live there, what happens if child dies, goes bankrupt or gets divorced, while parent still living there? In all such scenarios house is likely to need to be sold.

- Who is going to be responsible for maintenance of the property?

- What other provision does parent have for longer term needs? Is deprivation of assets an issue?

- Are there any inheritance tax issues?

- How many children do they have? Are they wanting/needing to treat all equally/fairly, and what will be the consequences if they don't?

It's a minefield in so many different respects, so is rarely advisable.

---

Will/probate is reall a totally separate issue.

Need a will?
For most people the answer is yes.
Consider:
- Will you leave any assets? Even if you think not, what if you unexpectedly inherit something towards the end of your life.
- Who do you want to manage things? Consider who will find it easiest, in terms of aptitude and time, and name them as you executor. Otherwise, there is a default hierarchy of who is eligible to manage it.
- Would you be happy with your assets being distributed according to the rules of intestacy?
- Do you have any other instructions to leave, e.g. For you funeral.

Whether probate will be needed will depend on the nature and scale of the assets left. If probate is needed, then in the situation where there is no will, someone has to apply for Letters of Administration instead, which amounts to the same thing as taking on the role of executor.

So, lots to think about before making any major decisions.

SunReader

elsien wrote: »

I know I keep repeating myself, but anyone considering this as an option may want to have a look at some of the care homes at the cheaper end of the market which is what you'll get if you give all your assets away.
Some are ok. Many are not. Money gives you choices.

Very true, although some of the larger organisations have the same understaffing/ lack of activities and budget food issues but shareholders and directors to pay.

It is almost impossible to read unbiased reviews on care homes as anything negative gets removed, for example 'the good care guide' only has good reviews. The CQC has a very low standard based around keeping the 'customer' alive it seems.

The downside is having money or property makes someone an easy target for social services: the 'self funder' is forcibly imprisoned in a care home on a specious best interest assesment, often assisted by the care home management with a financial interest, wheras the others without funds may remain in home with additional community care. It is all about money - nothing else.

Mojisola

SunReader wrote: »

The downside is having money or property makes someone an easy target for social services: the 'self funder' is forcibly imprisoned in a care home on a specious best interest assesment, often assisted by the care home management with a financial interest, wheras the others without funds may remain in home with additional community care. It is all about money - nothing else.

This is ridiculous. If you have more than the capital limits for getting financial help from the council, social services don't get involved.

They may hand over a list of approved carer companies and care homes but they can then cross you off their list and reduce their workload as it's up to you and your family to manage your care.

Torry_Quine

Mojisola wrote: »

This is ridiculous. If you have more than the capital limits for getting financial help from the council, social services don't get involved.

They may hand over a list of approved carer companies and care homes but they can then cross you off their list and reduce their workload as it's up to you and your family to manage your care.

When my relative went into a care home they were sef-funding. However they still had input from the care manager who liased with the home and came to assess them in the home afterwards.

Mojisola

Torry_Quine wrote: »

When my relative went into a care home they were sef-funding. However they still had input from the care manager who liased with the home and came to assess them in the home afterwards.

It must vary from area to area.

I don't believe anyone is "is forcibly imprisoned in a care home on a specious best interest assessment" by social workers or care home managers.

elsien

Best interests decisions are for those who lack capacity to make their own decisions about their care and support needs. Regardless of finances. Who makes those decisions will depend on whether or not there is a power of attorney in place.
Some recent thoughts for those who are interested:

http://localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=26415%3Awhose-call&catid=52%3Aadult-social-services-articles&Itemid=99

SunReader

Mojisola wrote: »

This is ridiculous. If you have more than the capital limits for getting financial help from the council, social services don't get involved.

They may hand over a list of approved carer companies and care homes but they can then cross you off their list and reduce their workload as it's up to you and your family to manage your care.

Not ridiculous, Councils have a duty of care to provide assistance to people needing it in their own homes - in my case, for a self funder' elderly relative it was a figure of around £470 a week funded by the LA . (coincidentally about the same DSS maximum care home week rate) This doesn't go far and any extra funding for live-in care will need to be found by other means.

Much cheaper for the LA is stick a charge on the house and kidnap the OAP into a lock-up care home, usually it is concealed as temporary 'repite'.

as it's up to you and your family to manage your care.

No, social services have all the powers - even LPA attorney isn't the magic wand . Also elder care is a moving target in the sense that if it takes 12-18 months to launch a a Court of Protection challenge, as I did - twice, as health deteriorates over time, the full time live in option becomes the only option.

Whilst care costs are increasing, care budgets are reducing -certainly in my area, LA's are very budget conscious and elderly home owners remove this financial burden. Again, it is all about money.