Family home dilemma

It is shocking that the state will not pay for elderly people's care just because they have been careful with their money and saved, it's awful their homes have to be sold, especially when they have put into the system and getting nothing back for it and people who just fritter their money away are looked after.

The thing is, people who condemn scroungers and so on, and pass on their assets, then become scroungers themselves..

But how does that work?
If you're self - funding it isn't an issue but if you need to have fees topped up who does the topping up? LAs can/will only pay a set amount so where does the balance come from?
Family could pay the difference but the alternative is that the bill keeps totting up and is ultimately reclaimed from the estate ie the sale of the house when the owner dies.
So the house does not have to be sold up front to pay fees but the bill has to be paid sooner or later.
It isn't the government or LA or SS who provide the cash - it's the taxpayer ie you and me.
Why should that be seen as fair when an individual has the necessary assets but prefers to give those assets to their AC?
Nobody promised me that if I was honest, worked hard and paid my mortgage then everything would be paid for me in later life.

Unless the house was put in trust I don't think you can just sign it over. You may be best get dome legal advice. I have put my house in trust so if I need to go into a home it cannot be sold from under my children.

Yes I agree Monical it is different, but my point was you can legally give your house away, someone said they couldn't. So sorry. But my facts are correct I could live in my house with my son having a half share, unfortunately he has given up the whole house. It just needs legal advice. Trusts can be set up at any age by the way.

I can remember feeling rather peeved when I married DH 37 years ago and moved into our home with a HUGE interest rate on the mortgage compared to now. We couldn't afford to go out, go on holiday and have all new mod cons. Friends who married around the same time and moved into a Council house (remember those) were going in holidays abroad, out every weekend and some every night! Once Sky tv came in to being the joke was "what's the square box attached to a satellite tv dish...a council house". I can remember our sons asking why we couldn't have sky tv when so and so could....well so and so didn't work, had a new baby every year, had all the new electrical gadgets, decent car and lived in a council house. Years later they bought the house at a much reduced price when interest rates were low, sold it several years later to move to a caravan in Skeggy, came back spent up, back into a Council flat and guess what....she again doesn't work, everything is paid for by the state who will continue when she goes into care. So who's the fool? We want to leave our house, we we consider to be the family home, to our kids in the hope that they will enjoy it ad much as we have. We've always worked, paid our taxes etc looking forward to a nice retirement which moves ever further way. So OP get that legal advice, look after your loving dad, let your brother enjoy the family home. Your Dad (and mum) probably went without when they were younger to ensure they had a legacy for you in later years.

I wonder if plumcushion is still with us.
You know when you are talking on the phone but you have been cut off and you’re just talking into space?
I’d be glad to be proved wrong though.

P.s. it is also totally different for an adult dependant who lives with you and shares your home as in the example of the AC needing care above. Or for a long term live in partner. The OP doesnt live inbthe house. Her dad does. Its his house.

You and/or your DB could die BEFORE your dad and your/his next of kin could turf your dad out.

Its not clever.

The rich do it by putting property in trust for their kids when they are young its a totally different situation, especially as the trusts/gifts are often second homes not the parents only residence.

Also worth bearing in mind that if your DB did manage to legally get ownership of the house with yur dad insitu, and he got into debt or sued etc, his assets: your dad's residence/home, could be seized!

My mother put her house in trust - it wasn't worth vast amounts, just a family home - but she wanted to avoid the situation of my being forced to sell.

Legal advice is vital.

The above is some advice given on the Saga website (updated 2017) re the OP's problem. There is much more in the same vein.

Under the circumstances you mention when you make the change is irrelevant, because while you live, your share of the house will be taken into account when assessing costs.

If this sort of system worked, it would be regularly written up in the financial pages of the newspapers and advertised everywhere by solicitors and financial advisors

The idea that there is a clever wheeze to avoid having your assets taken into account when assessing care costs that most people do not know of, is so improbably that it is unbelievable.

As for when you do it, if you are under 50 and in excellent health and can provide reasons why you have disposed of any assets, then SS may believe you, but once you are over 60, they will take a lot of convincing and it is you that have to do the convincing, not them.

seeded deeded

If the father still lives in his house and had seeded it to his two children, he, the father is still deemed to be the owner unless he pays full market rent to the children and this must be proven. The children must then pay tax on that rental income if they are taxpayers. So HMRC get involved.
A house, if rented out, would need to command a rental income of £4000 pm in order to pay full care-home fees. That does not cover the 'owner' having to pay for repairs, outside painting and buildings insurance.
The OP needs legal and financial advice...*pronto*.

Barmyoldbat, what you are talking about is something entirely different. There is no change in ownership, just how it is owned. The fact still remains that SS can look to the share of the house owned by the person going into care and take its value into account when assessing care fees.

This is nothing to do with how you choose to leave your assets when you die, but who has claim on them while you are living.

Quite agree GG, advice from aj solicitor is the only way.

Plumcushion
It's such a convoluted dilemma that I think, much as there has been some useful advice offered, you would be better to seek legal and financial advice from people who are au fait with your problem.
They can offer expert opinions on the best routes to take and the pitfalls, if any.
We here may not have recent incidents which mirror your situation.
Best wishes for a happy outcome for all concerned.

It is legal Monica. Last week we spent some time with a solicitor taking advice on becoming tenants in common and so being able to leave your share to whoever. We have drawn up what is called a bloodline trust which will ensure that this happens and our assets get passed to the family. I am sure that there is plenty of people with millions who do this. The council will do everything to overturn it but if it is done several years before any illness is evident they haven't got a chance. This Friday we are due to sign the documents and I will check about the rent side of things but I was told last week that the person still owning the half share can live there as long as they want and even sell and downsize if they want. Any money made by the downsizing goes into the trust fund. There are legal ways of getting around it, for instances for my daughter with special needs I could leave her share in a Discretionary Trust so that no care fees are paid but we have taken the other route.

I don’t know the full story but my French mother who lived her last 20 years in France sold her house when it was obvious she could no longer live independently due to dementia. She went to live with my brother in the U.K. who at some point must have got POA, spent all her money so when she went into a care home it was entirely funded by the council. ?

I do not understand why the OP's father ever thought doing this would work. If it did people would be doing it constantly and the papers would be full of advice on how to do it.

The current situation has been the law for decades. I first volunteered, with what was then Age Concern back in the late 1990s and this was the law then and has, as far as I know has never changed.

I also saw all the downsides of trying to do this, from elderly people being evicted from their lifetime home by their children. To another gentleman who was paying his children the market rent for the house (checked by Inland Revenue every year). He lived far longer than he ever expected, in an area where rents rocketed and sought advice when the market rent reached a point where it exceeded his monthly income.

The only advice was rent the house out and move to somewhere with a lower rent. He did not qualify for any benefits.

Well said, Barmey!

I will change my views when I see Amazon and Costa's pyling their fair share in taxes. In the meantime I am happy with my views on providing for my family and only paying a top up.

You need legal advice and ideally from a solicitor specialising in this area- ask Age Concern or Alzheimer's Society if they have a panel in your area. My brother and I had no end of trouble when my dad needed a care home as my mother had left her share of their house directly to my brother and I. About 4 years later, when he became ill the "delightful" social worker tried to force us to sell it to use the money for his care. ( He also had debts which took up about half of his share. ) It ended up with her boss and his deputy sitting in a room with our solicitor who explained the errors in their plan.

"We have never ever contemplated disposing of our assets to avoid paying for care".
Same here.
My Dad was a conveyancing solicitor and could have done this transfer of ownership years before they died but refused because he thought it was morally wrong.