HELP PLEASE!!!! - Parents property being transferred into Trust - GOOD IDEA???

securityguy

"The Statutory guidance means just that i.e. the LA has to follow it."

I've cited the statutory guidance. You can see how vague it is. The documents from Age Concern cite the law as it stands now: the claim that you can argue "it isn't DoA in 2040 because when I made the transaction in 2017 I don't think it was DoA" holds no water: you can't prove it wouldn't have been at the time, either.

I think making ten or twenty year bets on policies derived from vague statutory legislation is unwise. DoA is going to be tightened up as resources come under more pressure, and I don't think the claim that you can with certainty say that a trust set up in 2017 will be effective in 2040 stands examination. But hey: it's your money.

Yorkshireman99

securityguy wrote: »

"The Statutory guidance means just that i.e. the LA has to follow it."

I've cited the statutory guidance. You can see how vague it is. The documents from Age Concern cite the law as it stands now: the claim that you can argue "it isn't DoA in 2040 because when I made the transaction in 2017 I don't think it was DoA" holds no water: you can't prove it wouldn't have been at the time, either.

I think making ten or twenty year bets on policies derived from vague statutory legislation is unwise. DoA is going to be tightened up as resources come under more pressure, and I don't think the claim that you can with certainty say that a trust set up in 2017 will be effective in 2040 stands examination. But hey: it's your money.

I have, I hope, made it clear that the trusts previously discused on here will not work as far as DOA is concerned. However the professional advice that I have had is that it will be almost impossible for the LA to prove DOA for disposals more than two three years ago unless there is reall proof that the person knew they would need future care. There is absolutly nothing in the statutory guidance notes or case law, that I can find that says otherwise. Where is your evidence rather than the same point repeated time after time?

Linton

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

I have, I hope, made it clear that the trusts previously discused on here will not work as far as DOA is concerned. However the professional advice that I have had is that it will be almost impossible for the LA to prove DOA for disposals more than two three years ago unless there is reall proof that the person knew they would need future care. There is absolutly nothing in the statutory guidance notes or case law, that I can find that says otherwise. Where is your evidence rather than the same point repeated time after time?

Is there anything in case law either way? If there is the argument is settled. If there isnt, surely it is up to the councils to make their own interpretation until the courts or Parliament say otherwise.

Emma52

Thank you all for your information and comments.

securityguy

Linton wrote: »

Is there anything in case law either way? If there is the argument is settled. If there isnt, surely it is up to the councils to make their own interpretation until the courts or Parliament say otherwise.

I can find a bunch of cases which got to an upper tribunal, which is reported and sets precedent. I can't find anything terribly determinative, but I can find a rather worrying case in which reaching back to revisit past decisions is held to be reasonable.

In passing, I'm enjoying CIS 1921 2012 which includes the fantastic line:

He also stated that he spent “£40 to £100 per day on one or two females out of four doing some fetish things for me. This has been going on since I received my money from my dad.” He conceded (understandably enough perhaps in the circumstances) that he has no proof by way of receipts for this expenditure.

Of more interest to us, CIS 1757 2006 makes interesting reading. Its holding is that disposal of capital by someone _prior_ to moving in with the claimant can be held to be deprivation of capital by the claimant, is pretty sobering for some of the discussions here. It's clear that there are some harsh decisions by LAs, upheld by tribunals.

Yorkshireman99

Linton wrote: »

Is there anything in case law either way? If there is the argument is settled. If there isnt, surely it is up to the councils to make their own interpretation until the courts or Parliament say otherwise.

I suggest you read the Age Concern document referred to earlier. Local authorities emphatically cannot just make rules up as they wish. They gave to follow the statutory guidance. Furthermore, unless and until, as case gets beyond the tribunal the decision is not binding on LA's though it can be a good indication. In any case for a definitive answer you need to get paid for legal advice from a specialist. However as far as one of the schemes discussed the thread has drifted somewhat.

securityguy

Upper tier tribunals are equivalent to the High Courts, and therefore set precedent for lower courts. In particular, they set precedent for First tier tribunals. They don't set precedent for subsequent Upper tier hearings, but the judgements would be taken very seriously. So the decisions of an Upper tier tribunal will, for practical purposes, bind local authorities. Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, S.25(1)(a).

The statutory guidance, as I have repeatedly pointed out, does not have sufficient detail to rule any scheme in or out. The implementation of decisions will be in the hands of decision makers and, on appeal, first and upper tier tribunals.

SevenOfNine

Yorkshireman99 wrote: »

These schemes don't work! They are a scam. Telll your parents they are about to be ripped off big time.

THAT, in post #2, accurate & straight to the point. :T:T:T

Yorkshireman99

Quite! The thread has drifted way of the original point. I hope the OP is able to convince their parents of their potential folly. It also raises the question of why Trading Standards don't lean on the companies pedalling these schemes.

margaretclare

Your parents are fit and healthy. You don't state their ages, but is there any reason to suppose they will not continue to be fit and healthy?

Even with advancing years, the majority of people manage to stay in their own homes and not 'end up in residential care', as is feared.

On top of all the other disadvantages already put forward, there is the possibility that, although not proposing to go into residential care, your parents may decide to exchange their present home for something smaller, more convenient and easy-care. If they've put their present house into this complicated and dangerous arrangement, they haven't got the freedom to be able to do that!

I agree with everyone. Not a good idea.

BTW, DH and I are in our early 80s and we are not proposing or considering going into residential care. Perish the thought!