Creating a Trust

Browntoa

As pointed out " deprivation of assets" is an issue . Councils can apply to the courts to reverse anything they consider was done purely to avoid care home fees 

getmore4less

Lifetime interest in possession have a different tax regime to those set up by a will(IPDI trust).

SevenOfNine

Browntoa said:

As pointed out " deprivation of assets" is an issue . Councils can apply to the courts to reverse anything they consider was done purely to avoid care home fees 

Dead people don't need care homes & the council cannot take dead people to court. Nothing is being given away IN LIFE, so no deprivation of assets. In their WILL the first deceased would be leaving their 'share' in the home (assuming it's TiC) to the children, with the surviving spouse having a life interest in it. There is no deprivation of assets, the owner of the asset has died, had he/she needed a care home prior to that they still owned their share of the house. Wills kick in after death, not before!

No council can take people to court because they split a house they owned as Joint Tenants into owning it as Tenants in Common.

OP should be mindful of no IHT between husband/wife which would be lost with the above arrangement, but OP seems to be saying the estate as it stands is below that anyway - doesn't mean it will stay that way of course.

Morally, questionable for some people.  If the surviving spouse needs care, instead of having the whole property to pay for it they only have the half they own, because the other half belongs to the children. 

Browntoa

The movement of any assets at a late stage in life , particularly if you are in poor health is suspicious.

Questions are likely to be asked on application for care , not after death , when the persons assets are looked at .

Mandatory disregard excludes property jointly held anyway , it's only an issue for the remaining spouse. The odds on both needing care at some point are relatively low .

Having a relative in council funded care at one point I wouldn't wish that on anyone else , they are now NHS funded continuing healthcare and it's like the difference moving between a 1 star to a 5 star hotel .

I personally don't care about my mum's money , I'd rather it was used for providing what she needs and making her comfortable.

stig

let’s forget the moral aspect of this for the moment. If the parents assets are removed from their ownership before they might require residential care, they will have to rely on local authority funding for their care. This means they will have to accept being ”put” into whatever accommodation is available at council rates. They won’t be able to choose to be near their current home and family, to choose a home that would suit them, to look around and find what’s best - it will be “a room is free in “x” you’ll be moving there, and living for an unknown period of time somewhere they had zero choice in selecting.

Do you think this is a fair price to pay so that their children benefit from assets they didn’t earn? Why do you think it’s unfair for people use their own assets for their own needs, but perfectly fair for you to acquire assets you didn’t earn?

inheritance applies to what is left over after death. It’s not something to start divvying up when the owner is still alive!

maisie_cat

If a care home costs £1000 a week that's £5.95 an hour, if the OP and their siblings are prepared to do an 8 hour shift a day each there will be no need to pay greedy care home owners. That assumes that the OP thinks their time is worth £5.95 an hour.
Most of the doors have closed on contrived schemes to avoid care home fees, inheritance tax etc.
Transferring assets gives rise to a host of rules relating to previously owned assets/gifts with reservation. 

Mojisola

PierremontQuaker03 said:

maybe because they have worked their whole lives and want to leave their money it to their children, rather than the greedy care home owners ??

When my Dad needed to move into residential care, I was really grateful that we had the money from his house available so that we could chose a place that suited him.

There is only one home in our area that accepts residents at the council-funded rate and it was horrible.  There was no way I could have let my Dad move into it.

We were able to find a place that suited him perfectly and it was run by a non-profit company so the fees were reasonable.

PennyForThem_2

If the surviving parent needs care what about considering renting the house to supplement care fees which willpartially be paid by the monthly pension payments?  I suppose depends where the parent lives, whether house could provide rental income.  

Other route is an Immediate Needs annuity if the parent has a health problem and not funded by NHS.  This came up top of google search:
https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/family-and-care/long-term-care/immediate-needs-annuity

SevenOfNine

I'm guessing some posters aren't actually bothering to read the OP's question & the answers given to THAT question. No-one is talking about removing assets in the LIFETIME of each of the parents & OP isn't attempting to do so.

Deprivation isn't a problem, neither parent will be deprived of their assets. One will own theirs until they die & the other has their 50% 'share' of the asset, which MAY be needed for care fees.  What they must mindful of is it may not be anywhere near enough, IF they need care. 

What will the offspring who have inherited parent 1's share of the asset do, use it to improve surviving parent's care for longer, provide care themselves or just take their share & run?

All the bogging down in "deprivation of assets" is just a smokescreen for failing to understand what the OP thinks should be pre  arranged for the asset ON THE DEATH of parent 1.

The moral right/wrong of this is for the parents to decide. Our choice at this moment in time is no, we've left everything to each other. Death of the first it all goes to the other, IF everything subsequently goes to paying for care, so be it.

Keep_pedalling

SevenOfNine said:

I'm guessing some posters aren't actually bothering to read the OP's question & the answers given to THAT question. No-one is talking about removing assets in the LIFETIME of each of the parents & OP isn't attempting to do so.

Deprivation isn't a problem, neither parent will be deprived of their assets. One will own theirs until they die & the other has their 50% 'share' of the asset, which MAY be needed for care fees.  What they must mindful of is it may not be anywhere near enough, IF they need care. 

What will the offspring who have inherited parent 1's share of the asset do, use it to improve surviving parent's care for longer, provide care themselves or just take their share & run?

All the bogging down in "deprivation of assets" is just a smokescreen for failing to understand what the OP thinks should be pre  arranged for the asset ON THE DEATH of parent 1.

The moral right/wrong of this is for the parents to decide. Our choice at this moment in time is no, we've left everything to each other. Death of the first it all goes to the other, IF everything subsequently goes to paying for care, so be it.

I think you need to read the opening post again, the OP made it quite clear that they want to protect the whole house from being used for care fees by sticking it in some form of magic trust.