We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Gifting money
Comments
-
kingle15216 said:Comms69 said:Literally give anyone any amount of cash or assets at any point.
If they die with-in 7 years of said gift, it can attract IHT
If they need care with-in 7 years of the gift, council can count it as deprivation of assets.
Just like someone earning £12500 counts towards income tax, but no payment will be due as it's under the personal allowance.1 -
Mojisola said:Comms69 said:If they need care with-in 7 years of the gift, council can count it as deprivation of assets.
but does say if the gift was made when the person was fit and well and living independently it’s unlikely the local authority would be able to claim back.0 -
Re deprevation of assests.
Best way I can put it is It is if a gift or transfer of assets occurs when a person expects they may need care and support in the future, this can cause problems. IE you've been to docs and/or had a medical incident where you know a few years down the road you may need home care/etc.
Indeed people gift money property/etc like we have but that is how I expalined it to people years ago.
You can draw your own conclusions but if there is evidence there you saw a gp re forgetfulness or something else or it was confirmed medial condiotn and you let go of money, etc, the council will chase, chase and chase.
coucils will not pay care costs and assess you on as if you had the asests and not give you any money to fund care and point you to your loved ones where you sent your 3 million to.0 -
Savvy_Sue said:Mickey666 said:What does 'hot on people' actually mean in practice? Even if someone has deliberately deprived themselves of their assets, can the recipients of any such gifts be legally compelled to return the gifts?
Suppose I have £100K. I realise I'm going to need a substantial amount of care in a couple of years time, and I don't want to have to pay for it. So I give away £90K, and sure enough, 6 months later things get worse, I need help, and the council come and assess my ability to pay for the help I need, or my ability to contribute towards a care home. The council can ask for my financial records going back - well quite a long way if they're so inclined, but definitely over the last couple of years.
If I only had £10K, I might get the help they say I need / are able to provide without having to make a contribution. BUT they say "hang on, you had £100K, you gave it away, so you are required to pay for / make a contribution towards the help you need." They don't care where that contribution comes from.
This is tricky enough if you're trying to get help in the form of home visits, but if you're in need of a residential care home, I would not, in any case, want to leave myself with no choice - no choice because what the council is willing to pay for and what I'd actually enjoy may be two different things.But surely our welfare system has a responsibility to provide care for someone who is destitute in practice? I understand the point about minimum care not necessarily being an attractive proposition but if - for whatever reason - someone has given away all their assets (or maybe gambled it all away) is it really the case that a council could refuse to pay if they needed residential care?The welfare system doesn't seem to discriminate against other forms of irresponsible behaviour so why this particular one?Reminds me of this:Any ideas for some sort of gentle white-collar, victimless crime to get sentenced to an open prison somewhere?
0 -
kingle15216 said:I really hate the term ‘think they could need care in a few years’ - how the hell would you know? I could have a stroke tomorrow and need round the clock care, I’m 32! They are fit and healthy 80 year olds so apart from their age there’s no other reason they would!
But sometimes you have a pretty clear indication.
Signature removed for peace of mind0 -
Mickey666 said:But surely our welfare system has a responsibility to provide care for someone who is destitute in practice? I understand the point about minimum care not necessarily being an attractive proposition but if - for whatever reason - someone has given away all their assets (or maybe gambled it all away) is it really the case that a council could refuse to pay if they needed residential care?The welfare system doesn't seem to discriminate against other forms of irresponsible behaviour so why this particular one?Signature removed for peace of mind1
-
Bottom line, council can do naff all if you gave everything away. Downside, should you want to or family want you to go into a half ok private care home - it costs about 11 to 13k inc meals in london areas and surrounding and those with dementia etc can survive 10 years easily and moving a loved one out of a half decent care home to council funded one is a difficult decision.
FYI i worked for the coucil years ago not in this particular depart but heard enough to work our what was possible and what was not.
If you need care at the place you live in, gave away etc, the coucil would caluclate your fees as though you had not given the money away.
HTH
-1
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.3K Spending & Discounts
- 243.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.6K Life & Family
- 256.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards