Care Home Fees - Putting house in trust

LeadFarmer

Im not sure if a married couple each share full ownership of their house, or if they each own a half of the house?

74jax

Spendless wrote: »

Out of curiosity, why wouldn't this be classed as deprivation of assets, when one parent writes out cheques on his death-bed and then the other parent needs care? Not necessarily in your perosnal case, because your Mum presumably has enough money to pay for her care costs and it hasn't come to the point where her home is having to be sold or do you mean your Dad died many years before your Mum had care needs?

I've no idea sorry, in our case it was sadly very clear that no amount of care would save dad... He had cancer for 5 years and his will and money didn't bother him, but at the end... Well he was just very very troubled. Therefore he wasn't depriving himself as it was clear he was days (weeks) from death and wouldn't be needed for care. All his money, no joint account.

Mum doesn't have much savings, she has some but is now below the threshold. We have a strange pre-paid card which I manage and her social services have access too. I think most councils use them. Mum lives in a completely different place to me so it allows me to pay her care, chiropodist, etc. It's been a godsend. Only thing is it's 0% interest so we just keep the money in my name and transfer in every 3 months what we need. The card can only be used for care services.

I think others on this board may be able to help re the cheques from a joint account but I have no idea.

LeadFarmer wrote: »

Im not sure if a married couple each share full ownership of their house, or if they each own a half of the house?

I'm guessing it would depend how you own it. In my parents case mum owned half and dad owned half. And each can leave to who they want. In my case I own my home fully and my hubby doesn't own any.

mrschaucer

Spendless wrote: »

Wouldn't the money be classed as joint? Genuine question, I don't know the answer but for some things eg claiming means tested benefits it is the household income that is taken into account there's no 'his' and 'hers' money. Why would giving away money that is 'joint' not be classed as deprivation of assets should care be needed not long afterwards for the surviving party?

The money would have been joint if it had been in a joint account. (Here it wasn't.) If you have money in a joint account and your partner needs care, it still does not mean that ALL the money is ringfenced for that one individual's care. I think as far as care funding is concerned, money in a joint account is classed as being owned 50/50, so in this case, the husband would still have been fully entitled to dispose of his 50% without comeback. When you die, you can do whatever you like with YOUR assets - you do not have to leave them to your partner if you don't want. (So there's no duty on you to help the taxpayer provide for your loved one - you may or may not agree with that, but it's the right of an individual to leave his money how he chooses.)

I think this is why one is advised to split assets individually rather than have joint accounts when one half of a couple is likely to need care in the near future - it makes things so much easier.

martinbuckley

LeadFarmer wrote: »

My 75yr old mother received a phone call from a company called Securus Planning wanting to visit her and discuss putting her house in trust to safeguard against care home fees. Ive told her to ignore them, as they were cold callers.

My questions are...

1) Can a house be put in trust to safeguard against care home fees? If so, wouldn't this mean she risks going into an undesirable care home if the day came?

2) Who are Securus Planning? They appear to be a bunch of cold callers who no doubt overcharge vulnerable victims?

No offence, but I don't fancy contributing towards any potential care home fees for your well-off mother.

seven-day-weekend

LeadFarmer wrote: »

Im not sure if a married couple each share full ownership of their house, or if they each own a half of the house?

It depends whether thy own it as joint tenants, or tenants-in -common.

margaretclare

mrschaucer wrote: »

The money would have been joint if it had been in a joint account. (Here it wasn't.) If you have money in a joint account and your partner needs care, it still does not mean that ALL the money is ringfenced for that one individual's care. I think as far as care funding is concerned, money in a joint account is classed as being owned 50/50, so in this case, the husband would still have been fully entitled to dispose of his 50% without comeback. When you die, you can do whatever you like with YOUR assets - you do not have to leave them to your partner if you don't want. (So there's no duty on you to help the taxpayer provide for your loved one - you may or may not agree with that, but it's the right of an individual to leave his money how he chooses.)

I think this is why one is advised to split assets individually rather than have joint accounts when one half of a couple is likely to need care in the near future - it makes things so much easier.

This reminds me of when DH was being sent out of hospital on a 'care package' ( which we managed to cancel). One of the hospital SWs said to me in what she thought was a reassuring tone 'We'll only take half of your joint account'. I said 'Good luck with that.' We have a joint account, but we only keep it for household bills, car expenses, insurances etc that affect us both. Mostly, payments go out on the first of the month and thereafter there's not much in it. We each have our own personal accounts and we both contribute to the joint account. It's not possible to take money out of it except for regular DDs.


SW obviously thought we had a different arrangement.

margaretclare

LeadFarmer wrote: »

Im not sure if a married couple each share full ownership of their house, or if they each own a half of the house?

There are 2 ways that a couple can own a house. Joint tenants or tenants in common. In the case of joint tenants, both own the property. If one dies, the survivor owns 100%. Tenants in common is the one where you can leave half of it to someone else.

margaretclare

LeadFarmer wrote: »

My 75yr old mother received a phone call from a company called Securus Planning wanting to visit her and discuss putting her house in trust to safeguard against care home fees. Ive told her to ignore them, as they were cold callers.

My questions are...

1) Can a house be put in trust to safeguard against care home fees? If so, wouldn't this mean she risks going into an undesirable care home if the day came?

2) Who are Securus Planning? They appear to be a bunch of cold callers who no doubt overcharge vulnerable victims?

There may be a group of 'experts' out there who have latched on to the idea that this is something that all of us past a 'certain age' are worried about, and that they can make a good living by offering this kind of service.


The majority of older people do NOT need residential care, but there is this idea around that we'll need it but don't want to pay for it. That's what these folk are cashing in on.

fred246

Care home fees are expensive. How much will they cost when you need one? How many years will you need them for? If you are a couple will you both need to pay fees? So people will scrimp and save to pay for the time in your life when you can't walk, see or hear anything. I will probably end up paying care home fees but I am not planning to keep hundreds of thousands in reserve. I had a relative in a nursing home. She was paying £700 a week. Most of the residents receiving absolutely identical care were paid for by the council at a rate of £500 per week.

Malthusian

Anyone even considering one of these schemes to stick the costs of their care on the taxpayer should read all 16 pages of this thread: "help please with Universal Wealth preservation Trust"

The aims of these schemes are, in brief:

1) give away all your money
2) but somehow retain the use of that money
3) and make the taxpayer pay for your care

They usually succeed with one of those. And it isn't 2) or 3).