Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Goldman2020
    • By Goldman2020 11th May 19, 7:32 PM
    • 35Posts
    • 4Thanks
    Goldman2020
    April King
    • #1
    • 11th May 19, 7:32 PM
    April King 11th May 19 at 7:32 PM
    Does anyone have experience of using April King for the writing of Wills?
Page 3
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 14th May 19, 5:46 PM
    • 5,388 Posts
    • 4,546 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    Where do councils say they can access assets never belonging to the person that needs care.?
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    As per the link in post #32.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 14th May 19, 5:53 PM
    • 36,304 Posts
    • 22,358 Thanks
    getmore4less
    As per the link in post #32.
    Originally posted by Yorkshireman99
    You have not understood the contents of the link.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 14th May 19, 6:46 PM
    • 5,388 Posts
    • 4,546 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    Care to explain please?
    • Tom99
    • By Tom99 14th May 19, 6:52 PM
    • 4,329 Posts
    • 3,044 Thanks
    Tom99
    Care to explain please?
    Originally posted by Yorkshireman99
    The article referred to says:
    "However, if the Local Authority considers a transfer of an asset away from a personís ownership to be a Ďdeliberate deprivationí of that personís assets then they have the power to challenge such transfer."
    But this thread is talking about the 50% which was never owned by the person wanting care, not the other 50% they do own, so I don't see how deliberate deprivation could apply.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 14th May 19, 7:12 PM
    • 5,388 Posts
    • 4,546 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    The article referred to says:
    "However, if the Local Authority considers a transfer of an asset away from a person’s ownership to be a ‘deliberate deprivation’ of that person’s assets then they have the power to challenge such transfer."
    But this thread is talking about the 50% which was never owned by the person wanting care, not the other 50% they do own, so I don't see how deliberate deprivation could apply.
    Originally posted by Tom99
    Thank you. Point taken. However, I was making a wider point. If ONE OF A couple as TIC place one half of the house into a trust for the deliberate purpose of avoiding future care fees does that count as deprivation? It seems to me there is a strong case for the Council to say it does. AIUI a number of companies have been pedalling this sort of trust with exactly that objective.
    Last edited by Yorkshireman99; 14-05-2019 at 7:15 PM.
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 14th May 19, 7:49 PM
    • 14,725 Posts
    • 17,625 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    YM99 IANAL but seems to me that since the couple own the house 50/50 then the LA cannot coherently argue that the 50 that doesn't belong to the party who needs to pay for care, can be confiscated in order to do so. Each party has free reign to leave to whoever (or whatever) they want.
    To argue otherwise would in essence be arbitrary confiscation of assets. They may not even be married or in a partnership. And Why stop at the house? Why not take the other partner's investments or their car or whatever ? This is not a joint asset. If the government doesn't want people to hold assets separately they will need to legislate and I can't see that flying.
    Please dont criticise my spelling. It's excellent. Its my typing that's bad.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 14th May 19, 8:07 PM
    • 5,388 Posts
    • 4,546 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    YM99 IANAL but seems to me that since the couple own the house 50/50 then the LA cannot coherently argue that the 50 that doesn't belong to the party who needs to pay for care, can be confiscated in order to do so. Each party has free reign to leave to whoever (or whatever) they want.
    To argue otherwise would in essence be arbitrary confiscation of assets. They may not even be married or in a partnership. And Why stop at the house? Why not take the other partner's investments or their car or whatever ? This is not a joint asset. If the government doesn't want people to hold assets separately they will need to legislate and I can't see that flying.
    Originally posted by AnotherJoe
    Thanks for that. I tend to agree with you. However some councils are very pushy in these matters so I would not be surprised to hear of a case.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 14th May 19, 8:09 PM
    • 36,304 Posts
    • 22,358 Thanks
    getmore4less
    If they can go after the house, does it matter who owns the other 1/2?

    Those they can go after what else can they go after?

    A joint owner can sever the tenancy the day one of the other owners goes into care(or even while they are in care) and protect their share.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 14th May 19, 8:17 PM
    • 5,388 Posts
    • 4,546 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    If they can go after the house, does it matter who owns the other 1/2?

    Those they can go after what else can they go after?

    A joint owner can sever the tenancy the day one of the other owners goes into care(or even while they are in care) and protect their share.
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    Nevertheless based on personal experience they can be quite ruthless.
    • SeniorSam
    • By SeniorSam 15th May 19, 7:47 AM
    • 1,267 Posts
    • 655 Thanks
    SeniorSam
    getmore4less .... I believe that such action could be construed as deprivation of assets and would certainly be challenged if more care costs were needed, because they were fully aware of care needs.

    However, someone making there Wills now, with nothing to suggest that they would ever need to meet care costs would never be challenged.
    I'm a retired IFA who specialised for many years in Inheritance Tax, Wills and Trusts. I cannot offer advice now, so my comments are just meant to be helpful.
    • Tom99
    • By Tom99 15th May 19, 8:30 AM
    • 4,329 Posts
    • 3,044 Thanks
    Tom99
    getmore4less .... I believe that such action could be construed as deprivation of assets and would certainly be challenged if more care costs were needed, because they were fully aware of care needs.
    However, someone making there Wills now, with nothing to suggest that they would ever need to meet care costs would never be challenged.
    Originally posted by SeniorSam
    In order to claim deprivation of assets the person needing care needs to have owned the asset in the 1st place otherwise how could they have deprived themselves of it?
    You can't be accused of depriving yourself of an asset just because a deceased spouse or partner chose not to leave their share of the house to you in their will.
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 15th May 19, 9:22 AM
    • 14,725 Posts
    • 17,625 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    getmore4less .... I believe that such action could be construed as deprivation of assets and would certainly be challenged if more care costs were needed, because they were fully aware of care needs.

    However, someone making there Wills now, with nothing to suggest that they would ever need to meet care costs would never be challenged.
    Originally posted by SeniorSam

    No, that not going to fly. DoA is all about the assets of the person going into care, not someone elses assets.


    You are arguing its compulsory that if person A and Person B (and why stop there, why not C, D, E up to Z as well?) own anything together (no reason it should only be a property, nothing special about that) that no one can do what they want with their share, either in a will or even before death, but must allocate it to care for the other?

    I own some Apple shares. Must they also be used to pay for my wife's care? They are just as much mine, as my 50% the share of our TiC owned house.
    Please dont criticise my spelling. It's excellent. Its my typing that's bad.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 15th May 19, 9:32 AM
    • 5,388 Posts
    • 4,546 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    No, that not going to fly. DoA is all about the assets of the person going into care, not someone elses assets.


    You are arguing its compulsory that if person A and Person B (and why stop there, why not C, D, E up to Z as well?) own anything together (no reason it should only be a property, nothing special about that) that no one can do what they want with their share, either in a will or even before death, but must allocate it to care for the other?

    I own some Apple shares. Must they also be used to pay for my wife's care? They are just as much mine, as my 50% the share of our TiC owned house.
    Originally posted by AnotherJoe
    You are talking nonsense and distorting what I said. To be candid I see little point in discussing it with YOU personally.As far as you are concerned end of story.
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 15th May 19, 10:40 AM
    • 14,725 Posts
    • 17,625 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    You are talking nonsense and distorting what I said. To be candid I see little point in discussing it with YOU personally.As far as you are concerned end of story.
    Originally posted by Yorkshireman99

    Eh? I was replying to SeniorSam????????
    Please dont criticise my spelling. It's excellent. Its my typing that's bad.
    • Yorkshireman99
    • By Yorkshireman99 15th May 19, 11:12 AM
    • 5,388 Posts
    • 4,546 Thanks
    Yorkshireman99
    Eh? I was replying to SeniorSam????????
    Originally posted by AnotherJoe
    Which was replying to comments I made earlier. The point remains the same. I have
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 15th May 19, 11:54 AM
    • 36,304 Posts
    • 22,358 Thanks
    getmore4less
    getmore4less .... I believe that such action could be construed as deprivation of assets and would certainly be challenged if more care costs were needed, because they were fully aware of care needs.

    However, someone making there Wills now, with nothing to suggest that they would ever need to meet care costs would never be challenged.
    Originally posted by SeniorSam
    Can't be,

    The person needing care has no control over the actions of another so cannot deprive themselves of the asset they don't own.
    • Goldman2020
    • By Goldman2020 18th May 19, 8:46 AM
    • 35 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Goldman2020
    Has anyone put their property into TIC and then set up a trust for the children? What are your views?
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 18th May 19, 9:23 AM
    • 14,725 Posts
    • 17,625 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    Has anyone put their property into TIC and then set up a trust for the children? What are your views?
    Originally posted by Goldman2020
    Yep I did 3 years ago and am now reversing that with latest wills which should be concluded shortly . We decided that whoever was left wanted control and easy ability to sell, to upsize, downsize, use all the money for a good care home, or whatever without having to get agreement from the kids. It was done originally for the "gold digger situation" and not evading care fees, but would have applied to both situations ( for the half that was left to kids obviously not all of it) So we stay as TiC but inbthe new will each leave our half to the other. The kids will just have to hope I don't take up with a Russian supermodel or whatever. (Or same for MrsAJ)
    It's also going to reduce the size of the will which seems to be mostly taken up with trust clauses currently.
    Please dont criticise my spelling. It's excellent. Its my typing that's bad.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 18th May 19, 10:39 AM
    • 36,304 Posts
    • 22,358 Thanks
    getmore4less
    Yep I did 3 years ago and am now reversing that with latest wills which should be concluded shortly . We decided that whoever was left wanted control and easy ability to sell, to upsize, downsize, use all the money for a good care home, or whatever without having to get agreement from the kids. It was done originally for the "gold digger situation" and not evading care fees, but would have applied to both situations ( for the half that was left to kids obviously not all of it) So we stay as TiC but inbthe new will each leave our half to the other. The kids will just have to hope I don't take up with a Russian supermodel or whatever. (Or same for MrsAJ)
    It's also going to reduce the size of the will which seems to be mostly taken up with trust clauses currently.
    Originally posted by AnotherJoe
    With life interest will trusts

    Apart from full access the kids don't get any say unless you make them trustee(s).
    • AnotherJoe
    • By AnotherJoe 18th May 19, 11:25 AM
    • 14,725 Posts
    • 17,625 Thanks
    AnotherJoe
    With life interest will trusts

    Apart from full access the kids don't get any say unless you make them trustee(s).
    Originally posted by getmore4less

    Someones got to be a trustee have they not?
    Please dont criticise my spelling. It's excellent. Its my typing that's bad.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,829Posts Today

7,767Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LeedsWomensAid: We are pleased to see @MartinSLewis raising awareness about the important issue of financial abuse. Have a read of his?

  • Didn't get your MSE weekly email today - for some reason Microsoft (inc outlook hotmail) filed many as spam so chec? https://t.co/GH6aH9CBTn

  • RT @Gumtree: @MartinSLewis Hi Martin, we do not tolerate unscrupulous advertising by third parties on the Gumtree platform and are working?

  • Follow Martin