transfering house to children

Undervalued

Keep_pedalling said:

Undervalued said:

mobileron said:

Why should we pay for your care home??

It is not as simple as that emotive comment!

Take two people with similar jobs. One is very careful with their money and makes provision for their old age. The other "lives for today", spends every penny they have (and often more) and pays no attention to their likely future needs. By your argument "we" should refuse the second person any help in their old age as their inability to pay for it themselves is their own fault! Just how far do you take this?

And it is not as simple as that old chestnut. Every time this comes up it is about the equity built up in a home. Most of that equity will have had nothing to do with saving every penny but down to runaway inflation on property prices. That is certainly the case for us where 90% of our equity is down to inflation.

Few people in care homes funded by LAs fall into your second mainly mythical group, most have never been able to afford their own homes because the majority of people in the country are in relatively low paid jobs. Many are elderly women from a generation who stopped work when they had children. That was the case for my mother and of most of the other residence of her care home who I got to know while she was in there.

LA funded residential care is a safety net, and a poorly funded one at that. From personal experience I know how hard it is to clear the first hurdle to get it. You have to be in a really decrepit state to get the funding approved, so you may be struggling at home for months or even a year or two with very poor health and  little company with just short home visits from over worked carers, when what you really need is full time care.

Once you do get past that you are then left with a very limited choice of the care homes who are prepared to take on a LA resident for the amount a LA will pay.

Like most things in life those who have managed to accumulate more wealth always have better options, and for those with significant assets the difference is massive, and only a fool would deliberately deprive themselves of having control of what happens to them in their most vulnerable years. We have care costs built into are long term financial planning. We may never need it but if either of us do, we know we are in a position to get care when we need it, where we want it (preferable at home) and with who we want to deliver it. 

Briefly....

I agree it is "not as simple" as my "old chestnut" bit it is still relevant.

"Mainly mythical" - no I don't agree. I am not suggesting it applies to the majority, far from it, but it is very far from mythical.

"Only a fool..." - I agree that anybody who does so is foolish so in a way you are right. However I think you are meaning that they are few and far between and there I would disagree. A minority possibly, but far from tiny.

born_again

People need to stop worrying about leaving money to family & remember that they earned it, as such it is better used to fund a decent life once you are too old to look after yourself.

Children in most cases earn more than parents, as are in a far better place.

Paying for someone to look after you in old age is no different to paying to look after yourself up to that point.

cx6

Yes you can transfer it to your children. You will have to pay solicitor's fees and stamp duty (*) depending on the market value.

If you continue to live there - even rent free - then your children will have created a tenancy and must abide by all the rules pertaining to letting eg annual gas safety checks, 5 yearly electricity checks etc etc. Normally they should create a tenancy contract - in any case they will only be able to evict you under certain grounds eg Section 21 although rumour is this will be abolished soon so in effect you will have a lifetime tenancy unless eg they want to sell.

There is no problem should you wish in the future to go into a care home. The only problem will be if you apply for means-tested benefits to pay for the home. Depending on the number of years that has passed they may consider the transfer a deliberate deprivation of assets. 5yrs? probably yes. 20yrs? probably no.

(*) stamp duty is payable depending on the market value. In addition, if your children own a house already then an additional 3% will be payable for those who do. For those who don't, if they later on want to buy their own house then owning a slice of your house will mean they have to pay an additional 3%

macman

If the OP transfers the title and then occupies the property rent-free, then a tenancy has probably not been created. But the OP will have zero security of tenure an an excluded occupier only. 
Don't do it.

cx6

Why would a tenancy not have been created? (genuine question)

macman

Because there has been no 'consideration' (i.e. the  tenant receives the right to occupy the property exclusively in return for a consideration- rent). 
It's something of a legal grey area, as usually in such agreements the tenant provides other services in lieu of rent, such as labour, or maybe carrying out improvements to the property. But, without a consideration, it can be judged that no contract has been formed.

user1977

Don't you also need a defined term for a lease, rather than just indefinite occupancy?

patsyfagan1

patsyfagan1 said:

Is it possible to transfer my house into my children's names to prevent my house being sold if I have to go into a care home. I do have some saved income. Do I add their names to the land registry or ?????

thanks to all posts, will take on board what you have all said and have decided not to bother

cx6

thanks @Macman - just to disagree - a tenancy is  formed even if you let someone live there rent free - google search will confirm eg

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/buytolet/article-4487684/amp/Can-let-property-family-member-no-rent.html

macman

The article you quote is not case law or statute, it's merely an opinion, and states, quite correctly, some of the legal responsibilities that result from granting a tenancy. It says next to nothing as to what defines a tenancy.
A general principle of contract law is that there is only a contract when goods or services are exchanged in return for a consideration. That can be money, or other goods and services.