Deprivation of assets ?

Olinda99

also, as I mentioned, the markup on jewelery,  watches etc is so high you would lose a substantial amount when you eventually came to sell it.

RHemmings

Mgman1965 said:

Keep_pedalling said:

Would you actually want your MIL being dependant on a cash strapped LA for residential care? 

If you put more money in via the way of a mortgage she would be able to retain a larger savings pot to be used if the worse should happen. 

That's an idea we hadn't thought of.

Contrary to what some seem to think, it's not a scheme to avoid care costs but,

MIL was talking about equity release on her house and gifting family members the max she legally can "to stop the local council taking it" and we thought our idea could be a better solution. 

Maybe not., but it's her house and money to do as she wishes.

Mgman1965 said:

Update.

MIL is very savvy and canny (always has been).She bought her council house many years ago at a huge discount, mortage free from an inheritance, saying then it was a no- brainer for both property values and the savings on rent.

MIL is of the generation that you save (and have to leave an inheritance) not spend

Anyway, she's decided. 

Combining assets is to complicated and can be problematic tax wise and DOE.

Equity release is a "Con" and akin to "giving a large part of your house away" with the fees and interest charged. 

Now she's looking into selling her house (about 300k), buying the smallest, cheapest flat (with low charges) near to us she can find.

Keep the maximum in cash savings allowed in the bank by the LA for asset purposes. 

And "invest" the rest in (her words) "non traceable assets" such as  Gold, platinum rings  that can be kept at home or in a safety deposit box, Medium to High-end jewellery even watches, items that can be claimed as "personal items" not Assets and be forced to sell or be taken as DOA for buying and "later, cough cough") sold on or kept.

Honestly, this woman has to much time, an I-Pad and a crafty brain (she should be a Mafia financial advisor 😃). 

Despite you saying that it's not, it does look very clear to me that your (OP's) intention is to deprive assets. The only question is whether or not your mother will get away with it. Personally I would want to isolate myself from anything this dodgy (as I see it). 

sheramber

MIL was talking about equity release on her house and gifting family members the max she legally can "to stop the local council taking it" and we thought our idea could be a better solution
…………….,

And "invest" the rest in (her words) "non traceable assets" such as  Gold, platinum rings  that can be kept at home or in a safety deposit box, Medium to High-end jewellery even watches, items that can be claimed as "personal items" not Assets and be forced to sell or be taken as DOA for buying and "later, cough cough") sold on or kept.

These statements speak for themselves

Exodi

Honestly I'm sick of DoA threads, I've reported it.

You can't ask advice for robbing banks, yet it's seemingly OK to seek advice on robbing taxpayers. It shouldn't be allowed, there shouldn't be a back and forward about what might be looked into and what might not. The OP is clearly not trying to steer their MIL into the light and there's an obvious motivation why not.

And that's disregarding the sheer audacity of asking forum members, aka taxpayers, on the best way to fleece themselves.

If your MIL does not want to pay for her own care, who does she think will be picking up the bill? Or does she simply not care?

She's already enjoyed the benefit of "(buying) her council house many years ago at a huge discount" off the back of the council/taxpayer, I'm surprised she's so desperate to make the council/taxpayer pay even more.

Olinda99

I personally don't think this thread should be deleted in that I suspect quite a lot of people at least consider how they can legally avoid care fees should the need arise

Most of the options people come up with don't work and threads like this show people why

KxMx

People are also deluded about the standard of care a local authority aka the taxpayer will provide. 

As I've said umpteenth times the when is just as important as the where, you have to be extremely decrepit before a LA will pay for a care home, which leads to situations where the individual really needed residential care years before they got it.

This leads to very stressful situations not just for the individual but their family, whom the LA will pressure to call in on top of maximum number of funded care visits.
You might end up in a situation like my friend did (POA) also fielding calls from multiple other agencies concerned that the individual needed residential care (LA wouldn't pay until Hospital forced them). 

elsien

I am working with someone in a Local authority funded care home who has their personal allowance of £30 a week. The care home has just introduced a charge of £60 if you want to go out one-to-one with a carer up to 6 hours and £100 for longer than that. So her trip to the chiropodist and hairdresser and a coffee while out is now going to  cost 60 quid on top of the other costs.
The care homes argument is that they have a chiropodist and hairdresser coming in. My argument is that people want to get out to stop feeling locked in to have a change of scenery and to use the hairdresser that they may be been using for years. So basic quality of life.
That  is the sort of thing that extra money will get you, aside from everything else. 

Not everyone can rely on family to come and transport them about. 

tooldle

elsien said:

I am working with someone in a Local authority funded care home who has their personal allowance of £30 a week. The care home has just introduced a charge of £60 if you want to go out one-to-one with a carer up to 6 hours and £100 for longer than that. So her trip to the chiropodist and hairdresser and a coffee while out is now going to  cost 60 quid on top of the other costs.
The care homes argument is that they have a chiropodist and hairdresser coming in. My argument is that people want to get out to stop feeling locked in to have a change of scenery and to use the hairdresser that they may be been using for years. So basic quality of life.
That  is the sort of thing that extra money will get you, aside from everything else. 

Adding to Elsien’s  comment. My mum’s care home had a beach hut. Residents would be invited to take a trip to the beach, to watch the world go by on a regular basis. The home also had its own transport, mum certainly went on many rides around the local area, countryside etc, and went out and about with a staff member shopping for other residents. Don’t underestimate the huge benefit to the resident of these extras available to those who are able to pay higher rates. 

Many people seem to think their assets will be seized. There is no seizure, a self funded resident is expected to pay their bill in whichever way best fits their circumstances. For most this is a combination of pension income and either income from assets or savings. Funds may last a lot longer than a person might think.

Albermarle

Many people seem to think their assets will be seized. 

This is partly due to the way the media present these stories, so the fear that it will happen, is disproportionate to the likelihood it will actually happen. 

MSE_JC

Hi all,

I'm not going to go into the particulars of this specific thread, but I am going to offer a bit more general clarity on a part of the Forum rules.

The rules state:

Do not promote, encourage or glamorise any illegal activities. In particular on MSE, if you are thinking of posting about taking advantage of something that is dubious, or that exploits a 'grey area' of the law, err on the side of caution and do not share information about it. Common sense prevails here.

For obvious reasons, we don't allow people to wilfully advocate - or request how to perform - an action that they know to be illegal (or otherwise dodgy).

On occasion, a user may simply be unsure or unaware of the legal implications of a situation and other Forumites are able to give them insight. In this case, if a thread/post is discouraging a user from doing something illegal (or encouraging them to do something that IS legal), then that sits within the purpose of the Forum.

In summary, if someone's found to be deliberately posting something they know is legally dubious the Forum Team will take action.