Family home dilemma

G23 I’m actually a huge critic of the current system which I think is morally quite unjustifiable and so agree with what you say. Successive governments have shied away from reform and in this vacuum have emerged all sorts of schemes to try ( often unsuccessfully) to subvert the current system. That’s what I’m critical of - that some people play the system and that houses are often the vehicle they try and use.

The current system is a lottery with no fair principles underpinning it. One family will inherit eg a house because they were lucky enough to have parents who never required to go into care - another family could see much of their inheritance go in care fees. As you imply, if ones parents had cancer, the inheritance wouldn’t go on paying for the medical treatment. So we come back to the big question - how do we fund social care? The unfair lottery of the current system? Or through some form of hypothecated tax?
But in the meantime (and I speak as someone whose DH lost most of his inheritance to care hone fees) I won’t do anything to try and reduce our liability as that just shifts the problem onto others.

The 7 year rule applies to IHT (Inheritance Tax) nothing to do with whether the house may have to sold if Dad has to go into a Care Home. Speak to your Solicitor, Local Authorities can claim against the house if they suspect it was gifted to avoid paying fees.

My Step-F left myself & DD a quarter share each in their property, Mum stills lives there. Step-F died 20 years ago so I doubt Local Authority can claim against our share but can claim against Mum's half share

I may be cynical but I can see no reason for your father signing the house over to you other than to avoid inheritance tax or the payment of care fees.
I am not hard hearted but I do not see why wealthy people should get away keeping their assets when my parents who worked hard and saved for their retirement have had to pay for their care leaving nothing over.

shortlegs - why not read the thread instead of being unpleasant? I am well aware that a solicitor can help me. Forums are there for a reason and if I choose to ask a question or two that I'd like opinions on, I will.

Perhaps a forum isn't for you as you fail to understand this.

Before being critical, please remember that whether a person has 'paid their dues or not' is irrelevant if they are afflicted by any other disease, disability or illness. Their medical and care costs will be funded by the NHS unless they choose to go private.

Only the various types of Dementia are treated differently (perhaps because there is no cure or effective treatment) leaving the patient or their close family to pay for any help e.g. personal care, respite for the main carer, even end of life care and all the things they can no longer do themselves from shopping, cooking and cleaning, to minor repairs, gardening, transport, window cleaning. The only alternative is for one family member to give up the rest of their own life to provide unpaid 24/7 care.

The 7 year rule is only to do with inheritance tax, And nothing to do with getting rid of assets to avoid care he me fees.

By the way, there is no such legal 7 year rule. It's the reasoning behind the transfer if an asset. Your local authority should be able to give you info on how they apply the legislation. Some are more lenient than others.

Unfortunately you have fallen foul of the "depravation of an asset rule" in paying for care. Your DF just gave his property away for no reason other than he wanted to. Yes the value will be taken into account for care and he will be treated as self-funding. There is still provision for a 12 disregard to allow your DF to ensure he is okay in a care setting. But he is still self funding due to the amount of capital you mentioned. No way out afraid.

Whether the house was made over to avoid future care costs or not - it would seem not - one thing is often overlooked by people who do it with that purpose.

If and when the person does eventually need residential care, it's a good deal quicker and easier to arrange this if the person can be self funded.

If you are dependent on the tender mercies of hard-pressed social services, it's not unusual for relatives to be on their knees with stress and exhaustion from trying to cope, while social services still insist that the person is fine at home, perhaps with woefully inadequate 'pop in' visits from carers.

Personally I was very glad that we could choose the time and place for both FiL and my mother. We did not need to involve SS at all, and certainly didn't need a social worker to assess their needs, when we could see these all too clearly for ourselves.

A lot of people work very hard for what they have - how is that a reason not to pay ones fair share. Every scheme that reduces what one person pays in care costs means that others pay more or services deteriorate.

Also why should a house be treated differently from eg cash savings or investments?

Hm999 agree completely. I worked very hard for everything I have and wanted to provide well for my family. I used a good solicitor and both my sons have a home now and I have a modest house which half is in trust for the grandchildren and the the state can have the other half if necessary. Best no to leave things too late these days.

But he could have done that with a will - that’s what I don’t understand. Why complicate things now? The problem is I think the authorities are suspicious of these kinds of arrangements because they are not necessary to keep the house in the family

There are people called "solicitors" who deal in all manner of legal things and have been proven to be more reliable than a random forum.

Thank you, Annaraml.

maryeliza. My Dad did it purely out of love and with a wish that we would continue to enjoy the family home. It's a beautiful property with land and we all love it. He is well aware that one of us would live in it or make it into apartments for both my brother and my families. Nothing sinister.

OK, Kittylester, Anja and other hardhearted souls, I think you may have to wait until somebody you love has to go into care and the boot will be on the other foot.

Nobody who has always paid their dues and had the misfortune to get extremely ill should be cast aside and the family impoverished to pay for their final care,

As suggested we will consult a solicitor. Thank you.

In the meantime has anyone been in this position - jointly owning the house with someone and one of them wanting to buy the other parties share of the house? How does it work if Dad goes into a care home and the proceeds of the house are required to cover care costs?
In a nutshell, my DB buys my share now, and he doesn't live in the house until Dad has left the house (by going into a home or dying), the house goes fully into brother and his wife's name now and I am removed from the deeds and have no ownership. How does that work if we need some money from the house for Dad's care costs?
This scenario would suit my DB and me on a personal level, but we don't want to leave Dad vulnerable financially.
I'm sorry if I'm not being clear.
Thanks.

What puzzles me is why your father made the house over to you in the first place? When houses are made over I’m afraid it’s usually all about trying to avoid IHT and/or care fees. And when I used to work in CABs I came across some examples of people who had done this only to then have the house sold from under them for example as part of a divorce settlement. I love and trust my dd but my name is staying firmly on the deeds to my house

It wouldn't be handing it over to the state, it would be paying for your care!

All I can say is that those of you who say it is fair for the
State not to fund your loved ones expensive care in care homes obviously have no experience of the situation. If you are poor you get your care free, even if you have always smoked, drank, been in prison, been a murderer or rapist, had endless children, abused your family, been a drug addict and have purposely rendered yourself unemployable by having facial tattoos, so that taxpayers have to fund your dole. You will find yourself in the same care home as somebody who has led a blameless life, been employed and always paid taxes etc. and looked after their family, and has to pay £1000 per week when they need care. .
I suppose you think this is fair. My husband was in a care home for many weeks and I got a large bill when he died.

Hm999 - I'm with you. I've worked damned hard all my life, sometimes going hungry to pay for my home. I was never able to save for a private pension, so exist on the state pension. I'm grateful for that, but sick of being told how well off 'lucky' our generation is. If I'd have had two kids out of wedlock, I don't think I would have automatically been entitled to a three bed house and be kept on benefits like one of my young relatives is. I hate that my 29 year old son, who has worked really hard since leaving school, may never get on the property ladder. My only consolation is that one day he will have a share of my home - I'd rather take to my bed with a bottle of pills than hand it over to the state.

Sorry I haven't read this thread all the way through, but I read an article once which said that, unlike HMRC, there is no limit to how far back councils can go to see if assets have been disposed of to avoid payment of car3e costs.

That said, if you can prove that when the house was signed over there was no suggestion of dementia or anything else leading to care, the transfer may not be regarded I n that light.

As posters have said, a case for consulting a lawyer.

To avoid selling the house and yoyr Dad has savings then use that first - especially if you think there is enough for 18 months worth of care
Regarding the house you need to see someone who is an expert in this area. But don't do anything in a hurry and it's always better to keep your Dad where he is in familiar surroundings with extra support & care in place

The rule is simple. If it is believed that your father gave you and your brother the house to avoid paying care home fees. When he is assessed for how much he has to pay towards his care, the value of the house will be taken into account.

It will be up to you to prove that this was not his intention not SS's responsibility to prove otherwise.

The only chance he has is if he has been paying you and your brother the market rent every month since the sale was completed. SS will, again, want evidence that this is the case and the rental agreement can be seen to be part of the original sale negotiations and the dates of rental payments support that claim.

The fact that other members of the family are living in the house when he needs care will only be taken into account if they have been living there as his carer - and it has been their only home for some period. Or the person is dependent on your father - a disabled adult child or similar.

Sorry, I think you are up a creek without a paddle and whatever payment your father is assessed for, if any will need to be met, although whether you choose to let the house and use the rent plus family support or sell it is up to you.

Inheritance rules are irrelevant here. The only test will be: Did your father sign over the house to avoid care fees. If it is decided he did. That is that.