Tenants in common or joint ownership?

Venicelady

greenlady102

kittylester

Sorry, didn't complete my post.

Joint tenants are liable to have the whole value of the property taken into account.

While the house is not sold to pay for the costs, a charge is place on the property and interest charged.

From that point of view, Tenants in Common is the best way forward.

This is not actually accurate. If a married couple/civil partnered couple are joint tenants and one (personA) needs residential care, then the house is not taken into account when their contribution is calculated. If the same couple are tenants in common, then the value of person A's share will be taken into account and person B MAY need to leave the house in order to fund the care. There is also the issue that moving from a tenants in common to a joint tenancy after person A's care needs may reasonably been foreseen, might be adjudged as deliberate deprivation and the value of person A's share may still be taken into account. Neither way is "best" but you do need to consider carefully what is best for you.

What criteria is used to judge if person B may be required to leave the house? Do you have a link to this information? I would be very interested to read it.

We changed our will to tenants in common via our solicitor after much discussion, and that was never pointed out to us.

Local authorities have a lot of latitude over what they can do. For instance, they can put a charge on the house to be paid at a future date. They actually can (although I don't think they currently do) take into account the value of the share of the house from the get go. As my link says, focus on the assessment process is now on being a beneficial owner which is defined as a person who would benefit from the sale of the house regardless of their legal status as an owner...these may not be the exact words please look at the link. My point was that under the current arrangements, as I understand it, a tenant in common who lives in the house at the time of the assessment as their only residence, is by default entitled to stay living in the house and the value of the house is disregarded unless/until circumstances change. As I said, neither way is better, it depends what your personal situation and priorities are.

Anyone who marries where there are children of a previous marriage should use tenants-in-common ownership. You cannot be certain that a surviving spouse will do the right thing by their stepchildren. However lovely they are right now, personalities and circumstances can change.

I remarried last year and we did this for precisely that reason. I've put in more capital up front and so we are holding things 70% me, 30% him. The survivor has the right to live in the house until death, sale, or shacking up with a new partner. If I survive him then I will almost certainly sell up and move somewhere more manageable (the garden is too big for me on my own) and so his children will get their 30% early-ish. He will of course make his own choices but my children won't lose out at the end of the day.

Think Money-box on R4 is covering these issues , it will be on shortly.

We have tenants in common with each of us leaving our share to the children. This was done to avoid any new partner inheriting the property and our children potentially losing any inheritance.

Iam64

I’m often taken aback by young women who are happily living with the father of their children but have no legal agreement about who owns. I’ve no issue if people don’t want to marry but it’s marriage that gives security. It’s so often the mother who comes out financially worse off. Not least because they’ve either taken a career/work break or more likely worked part time with young children.

I think one of the main reasons for this is that most people are unwiling to think about or discuss death.

Another significant reason is that I have not yet come across a school system that actually taught the elder pupils anything at all about the law.

Teaching religion at school, I told a class of 15 year olds what the law actually has to say about marriage. They were shocked to hear that legally you may marry your first cousin. Most countries' legal systems allow this, even if the church you belong to does not.

When I asked why, they said quite correctly for the most part that doing so would increase the risk of congenital illnesses being passed on to the children of the marriage.

Even in social studies as taught in most schools pupils are not made aware of the legal ramifications of living together rather than being legally married and they assume all through their adult life that an unmarried long-term partner has the same rights as a legal spouse.

Sadly, I have often met long time lovers who were denied the right to decide how and where their deceased lover should be buried or cremated because there had never been a legal marriage. The deceased's blood relations stepped in and decided everything and in one atrocious case actually held the funeral without inviting or informing the bereaved lover.

Top up needs to be considered as well.When my mum went into a care home as she needed 24 hour care and my doctor said I couldn’t do that.I sold her property and used that to pay for her care,then suddenly the care home wanted what they called a top up they where already getting nursing care extra which I wasn’t expected to pay.This top up was required to be paid by her children not allowed to pay it out of her own money.There was only my sister and me, my sister refused to pay anything as she couldn’t afford to because as she said if she did she wouldn’t be able to have all her four holidays a year.
So I had to pay it even through I actually couldn’t I didn’t have any holidays and had three children.It was most unfair as we struggled to pay the extra and my mother still had money from the sale but I wasn’t allowed to use that even though I had a POA.
The most gruelling part was over 60% of the people in the home got all their costs paid by the council as they had no money no property they had spent their money.
Also I couldn’t claim the money I had paid which was considerable from her will as that had been made years before and my mum wasn’t well I didn’t want her worried by money issues.
The care was lovely and the care was excellent I was told by my B in L to move her to a cheaper home to save money.I refused to upset her as she was comfortable and happy.
Just to amuse you all my sister had always been the favourite child with my Mum but she never knew any of this.

sorry home was lovely

So what happens if you need care but are only RENTING a property? Who pays then?

kittylester

But, as Tenants in Common, only 'your' share of the property can be taken into account when care is required. The person needing care will have their share taken into account when a contribution to care costs is calculated.

This seems to be one of the main reasons that people go for Tenants in Common but when the first person dies it can be expensive to set up the necessary trust arrangements. I also found that not only the half of the house went onto the trust but also his half of joint savings/investments could have gone into it though we chose to not do this.

Also,if in a Rental property,is it best to add one, or both, adult sons (both live at home) to rental agreement, if i get a new rental property, in case of anything happening to me in future? I've read a couple of stories recently where adult children have had to move out! (We have no funds to buy so stuck with rented) Housing assoc at moment (10yrs) but looking to move.Any advice on this situation please??

Nannan2

So what happens if you need care but are only RENTING a property? Who pays then?

If you don't own a property then it can't be taken into account of course! Other assets and so on will still be assessed. The thing is that for many of us, our property is our biggest asset and also its an asset that is often shared between two or more people.

Nannan2

Also,if in a Rental property,is it best to add one, or both, adult sons (both live at home) to rental agreement, if i get a new rental property, in case of anything happening to me in future? I've read a couple of stories recently where adult children have had to move out! (We have no funds to buy so stuck with rented) Housing assoc at moment (10yrs) but looking to move.Any advice on this situation please??

that depends on the landlord. Some allow transfer of tenancy, some do not.

Thanks Greenlady, but thats obvious, what i meant was, if the person not owning a home needs care, what then? With NO property to use, are they expected to be shoved into a state funded horrid place then??And what is classed as 'other assets' exactly?

And any advice from anyone over the tenancy from a RENTAL point of view would be helpful please.

Thank you again Greenlady- we are in housing association property so not sure if its secure unless they're on agreement? (When i signed up 10 yrs ago they were still children) But i read of a couple of situations recently where AC of similar ages to my sons were just to be 'thrown out' when their parent died.(one young lady had to put it on social media and local news before they offered them a 'smaller, replacement home'.My sons could not cope with all that, they have disabilities.

Do i need to take legal advice also then? Especially before i sign up to any future tenancy if we do move house in future??Do my sons need it as a joint tenancy rental agreement? They are late teen& early 20's now.

*sorry Greenlady, our posts had crossed.

Any advice helpful, if i have to add them to tenancy agreement i will, if it makes their home more secure for the future.?

Nannan2

Thanks Greenlady, but thats obvious, what i meant was, if the person not owning a home needs care, what then? With NO property to use, are they expected to be shoved into a state funded horrid place then??And what is classed as 'other assets' exactly?

If someone has assets less than £14,000 ( approx) then Social Services will do an assessment of your care needs and if they feel a care home is necessary ( usually after trying care visits at home) then they will have to offer a care home that will accept their Local Authority funding level without a top up. This amount is often much losses than most care homes charge so yes, it could have less amenities or even be rated as inadequate.

As an example, when my mum went into a care home, her LA were paying £675 a week for fully funded care, mum was self funding and we chose a care home charging £1040 a week - by no means the most expensive in our area. The social worker offered a home which was 23 miles away from me, in a very deprived area which, although fairly new and nice enough inside, had no gardens or outdoor space, no en-suite bathrooms, only one lounge for all 50 residents and very small bedrooms. Normally social workers would have been involved as we knew mum would self fund, but it was during the first lockdown and mum was boing funded through the Covid funding to free up hospital beds.

So unfortunately people without assets do not have as many choices as those with assets but I am sure that the care they receive is adequate, all homes are inspected regardless of who owns them. In fact LAs own very few homes directly anymore, most were sold off years ago and are run by companies, charities or not for profit organisations ( like the one my mum lives in)

Bookmarking.

a point I would like to make is not about wills but has some reference to the points. when my first husband and i divorced I did not have a high level solicitor and in all the unhappiness of the time had not thought about the pensions affect and he was very well off and I ended up getting half the house money but nothing was put in for the pension rights that i missed out on which was a lot of money and would have been a great help later on. I worked for 11 years and then looked after our adopted son, lived abroad and raised the deposit for our house and ended up with the minimum amount of money. People do need to think about their situation if they are not married - their choice I agree but have they looked at things like the partener being able to leave the pension to them or whatever. I am now 76 and it does not affect me personally but I see in family members and friends children that this has often not been thought of and because we hate to think of such things we have not looked at the legal situation should someone be killed in an accident etc , where you may not be their next of kin and if they havent made a will that will add so much misery and anquish apart from what they are going through. Whether you marry or not I do think that getting together in what you hope will be a long term partenership that making a will should be a symbol of caring and sharing .If you are lucky enough to be together for years and have a happy life together then it seems a very sad situation where care costs and who owns what can take away from precious time you have together.

Thanks Teacheanne, thats a bit more enlightening on the care homes score, at least.

Nannan2

Do i need to take legal advice also then? Especially before i sign up to any future tenancy if we do move house in future??Do my sons need it as a joint tenancy rental agreement? They are late teen& early 20's now.

you need to get this information from whoever is your landlord....you may already have it in your tenanacy agreement information or it may be on the organisation's website....no point paying for legal advice if you can find it out for yourself!

This is a fascinating thread. I hope you dont mind if I ask a question on it Atqui.

Sadly my wonderful husband has a life limiting illness and is likely to die in the next couple of years.

A few years ago he had a business dispute with a horrible man who tried to get hold of his assets. We were advised by our solicitor at the time to swap to tenants in common (50/50%) which we did.

That situation was resolved some time ago and our previous solicitor has retired. We have asked new one about switching back to joint tenants but they have said there is no need because we have wills which stipulate that the house goes to each other.

For some reason I still feel uneasy about this and I'm not sure if I'm just been a bit unreasonable because I dont really understand it all. I think ive probably got an old fashioned view that if I 'own' it all (jointly) then when the inevitable happens it will be less fuss to deal with ensuring that the house is fully in my name.

I'd be really grateful if anyone has any thoughts on this. Sorry to hijack the thread.

I dont think you have anything to worry about, as your solicitor has advised.