Changing house deeds to children

Hudsonbutler

Keep_pedalling said:

Hudsonbutler said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Hudsonbutler said:

So the moral is don't buy your own home.

No the moral is, don’t be an idiot and don’t give your home away.

I won't encourage anyone to buy there own home, just to give it away to local LA. Better off,  as the rules stand, to put money in pensions, as this doesn't form part of your estate.  It seems this method is quite acceptable. Most people including myself, worked dammed hard to own my own property, with the intention of passing it on to my children. But it seems it is thought of as atavistic!

The percentage of home owners  who have to use their homes to fund care is tiny, so it is absolutely idiotic to suggest people will be better off not buying their own homes because their is an outside chance that you may use it to fund care. They are going to be pouring a lot more money into the hands of a landlord than they would be paying for future care costs.

Pensions are not ignored by the LA, if you are of pensionable age you will be assumed to be receiving income from the pension even if you have not gone into drawdown. You will also be able to put a lot more into a pension if you have paid off your mortgage than if you were still paying rent.

You and many others may have worked hard to own a property, but I am willing to bet that most of its value has been achieved though house price inflation rather than work. We have £600k of capital gain in our house, which required no work, and no tax has been paid on it. The house and combined with pension income would pay for 10 years residential care each which is never going to happen. 

I am more than happy to self fund if care is needed and I want to be able to choose who does the caring and where it is done. First choice will be to have a live in career which no LA will pay for, and second choice will be the best local care home available. Being left with a limited choice that the LA will pay for is not a choice we are willing to accept, which is why we have savings set aside for to cover either of us needing care.

You're very fortunate to be so well off.

Hudsonbutler

Browntoa said:

I genuinely know a lady who signed the house over to her daughter " to protect it from care "

The daughter gave it a year and then evicted the mum and sold the house . The mother was classed as intentionally homeless and struggled to both find a place to live and fund it from what little income she still had .

I also know of a couple who did it. Personally we will go down the tenants in common route, that way they will at least have something 😉 

Keep_pedalling

Hudsonbutler said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Hudsonbutler said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Hudsonbutler said:

So the moral is don't buy your own home.

No the moral is, don’t be an idiot and don’t give your home away.

I won't encourage anyone to buy there own home, just to give it away to local LA. Better off,  as the rules stand, to put money in pensions, as this doesn't form part of your estate.  It seems this method is quite acceptable. Most people including myself, worked dammed hard to own my own property, with the intention of passing it on to my children. But it seems it is thought of as atavistic!

The percentage of home owners  who have to use their homes to fund care is tiny, so it is absolutely idiotic to suggest people will be better off not buying their own homes because their is an outside chance that you may use it to fund care. They are going to be pouring a lot more money into the hands of a landlord than they would be paying for future care costs.

Pensions are not ignored by the LA, if you are of pensionable age you will be assumed to be receiving income from the pension even if you have not gone into drawdown. You will also be able to put a lot more into a pension if you have paid off your mortgage than if you were still paying rent.

You and many others may have worked hard to own a property, but I am willing to bet that most of its value has been achieved though house price inflation rather than work. We have £600k of capital gain in our house, which required no work, and no tax has been paid on it. The house and combined with pension income would pay for 10 years residential care each which is never going to happen. 

I am more than happy to self fund if care is needed and I want to be able to choose who does the caring and where it is done. First choice will be to have a live in career which no LA will pay for, and second choice will be the best local care home available. Being left with a limited choice that the LA will pay for is not a choice we are willing to accept, which is why we have savings set aside for to cover either of us needing care.

You're very fortunate to be so well off.

I know, but there would appear to be plenty of others with massive equity built up in their home who are more interested in maximising their children’s inheritance ahead of their own interests. 

Keep_pedalling

Hudsonbutler said:

Browntoa said:

I genuinely know a lady who signed the house over to her daughter " to protect it from care "

The daughter gave it a year and then evicted the mum and sold the house . The mother was classed as intentionally homeless and struggled to both find a place to live and fund it from what little income she still had .

I also know of a couple who did it. Personally we will go down the tenants in common route, that way they will at least have something 😉 

That is as far as anyone should go, although an inheritance is never guaranteed even the.