Mum and Dads estate (they are still alive)

PierremontQuaker03

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82114745#Comment_82114745

They are joint owners of the house

FlorayG

They won't get HA sheltered housing, they are not eligible because they own a house. Selling that house will not make them eligible either; I know people who have tried it.

elsien

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82115227#Comment_82115227

That may be the case in your area, but in my area you can sell a house and still apply and get into housing for older people. Eligibility criteria varies geographically and it is always worth checking.

elsien

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82115168#Comment_82115168

They might want to look at the pros and cons of being tenants in common option. So if one passes away and they leave their half of the property to someone other than the spouse, that half of the house would be excluded from the financial assessment for any future care costs.

That does mean both of them may need to have capacity to remake their wills if necessary, and there may be implications for selling up and downsizing for someone who only owned half the house, but it’s worth looking at a more detail. That is the limit of my knowledge, but there’s probably other people on here who can explain a bit more about the best way for it to work.

Albermarle

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82115168#Comment_82115168

Not sure of you are aware, but there are two forms of joint ownership.

Joint Tenants - They literally own the property jointly. So if one died the other now owns the house 100% regardless of what any will says.

Tenants in Common - They own 50% each, so as suggested in a previous post, it is possible to leave your half to someone else.

. One thing my parents have suggested is selling their bungalow and renting a flat

With their age and care issues, I would be very reluctant to give up the security of owning their own home.

bunnygo

tenants are a lot more secure now due to renters rights (basically impossible to evict legally unless landlord wants to sell or move back in - court delays are huge and costs even bigger). But that means most decent landlords are exiting the sector so you are likely to get one that isn't too bothered about the law. Which means good luck getting fixes or even basic maintenance done.

Could consider renting a place in a retirement development (McCarthy and Stone or similar) - but never ever buy these as they are very difficult to sell. And that will eat up your inheritance with the fees even if the care costs don't.

RAS

Whilst your parents own their own home and one of them lives there, it is totally disregarded for care assessments.

Sell it and and they have capital that they will be expected to use for care payments. The reverse of what they/you want to do.

As part of any care assessment the person completing it will be asked if the parents have ever owned a property. And exactly how any proceeds were spent.

If the assessor thinks money that could have been used to pay care costs has been diverted, it's quite simple. The LA refuse to fund the care costs. They can also demand that the diverted money is returned to the accounts of the person needing care.

And that'll also trigger an investigation by the OPG. Between the two substantial legal costs can then charged to the estate.

I recall one case where ownership of assets were reversed and charges made against one of the future beneficiaries which wiped out her entire possible inheritance. The less than alert sibling only lost about half to cover their share of the costs.

Yorkie1

Could consider renting a place in a retirement development (McCarthy and Stone or similar)

Always worth checking the T&Cs of such places - they can state that you must be in sufficient health, and it's possible that your mother could fall foul of that now or soon, depending on progressions.

silvercar

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/82113311#Comment_82113311

Does that mean, with the knowledge of the will (though this could be changed if the donor has capacity, the attorney has absolute choice whether to cash the premium bonds to repair the roof or use other funds? Presumeably depending whether the grandchild was their child or nibling?

Dead_keen

Does that mean, with the knowledge of the will … the attorney has absolute choice whether to cash the premium bonds to repair the roof or use other funds?

That is beyond my experience, but yes I think they do have the choice, but I don't think it is an absolute choice. Also, choices are often not binary (e.g. the attorney could use cash/premium bonds proportionately).

Presumeably depending whether the grandchild was their child or nibling?

No, the attorney has to act in the best interests of the donor, not their child. In some cases, like the other example I gave or where there may be a conflict of interest, it would be best to get the Court of Protection to decide. The other example I gave was:

Take another example, donor's will gives £300,000 house to nephew and £20,000 cash to charity. Donor has a stroke and needs care home. Attorney sells home for cash to cover care home fees but donor dies soon after. Nephew gets nothing, charity gets lots of cash. That's not what the donor would have wanted. If the attorney knows the contents of the will they can go in advance to the Court of Protection and ask for a statutory will or an order for sale of the house to protect the nephew's inheritance.

There will also be cases where it's clear what the donor wanted (e.g. the will says all premium bonds (currently £500) are to go to the neighbour who used to walk the dog, and the rest to the spouse, and the attorney now has the choice of rolling over a £49,500 one year fixed rate savings account or investing that money in premium bonds).