What's this scheme called please

You would also do as I do if you wanted to protect your assets due to a second marriage.

Nobody needs to know why a couple are splitting their jointly owned assets Doodledog because there’s nothing illegal or immoral in it. For instance the ownership of a house owned as joint tenants being changed to tenants in common or a joint bank account being changed to two separate ones. It’s giving assets to a third party in an attempt to hide them or reduce liability for care fees, tax or any other liability which is wrong.

I doubt many people would spend their money to avoid care costs - surely it’s more a matter of living for today as who knows if you’ll be here tomorrow? Some people do, others are more prudent and put money aside for a rainy day.

volver

I'm Spartacus ?

As for having care at home and paying for it? Good luck with that. I speak from experience.

I am about to move 120 miles from my husband into rented accommodation, because even if you pay for it, there is no care to be had at home for my DF. So I have to do it. This is not how I had planned for my sixties to be.

What a country.

That's sh**ty for you Volver.
I am so sorry it came to this.

Germanshepherdsmum

No, Doodledog, splitting jointly owned assets between partners is ok and indeed prudent. What is fraudulent is trying to give assets away, for instance to children, to try to avoid care fees.

But how can anyone know why a couple is splitting their assets? Should anyone outside of the couple be able to make the assumption that the reason is to protect inheritance, when it may not be, or that it passes their muster when in fact it is being made to avoid care home fees?

My solicitor did advise us that using that system would be a way to avoid losing our house if we needed care, so whatever BOB's motives there will be some couples choosing the system for that reason alone.

It may be that the woman I referred to as A above deliberately spends her money as she does so that she will pay nothing for care, or it may just be that she lives for the moment. Who is to say that she is right or wrong? Or that her sister is more or less 'moral'?

Laws and rules should apply equally to everyone, and whereas there is always going to be an element of lottery as not everyone will ever need care, IMO people should not have others deciding that they can make judgements on their motives or intentions.

Don't apologise. There must be many of who know how you feel and the difficulties you all face.

Thanks everyone. Sorry to have derailed the thread.

So sorry to hear that, volver

I know how difficult it can be, even years ago getting any help at all was near impossible.

Rotten situation volver. I have been involved in trying to organise care packages and that's without me having to move house to do it. I hope you can find a good way of taking care of your Dad

Thank you Barmeyoldbat

I am sorry Volver for your situation, believe me I have had plenty of experience with care providers, also social services, financial assessments, going through the Court of Protection and `power of Attorney all of it with my daughter. It isn’t easy by any means caring for someone with all the different regs and services, everyone giving you advice but no one helping. I hope it goes smoothly and remember to take care of yourself

No, Doodledog, splitting jointly owned assets between partners is ok and indeed prudent. What is fraudulent is trying to give assets away, for instance to children, to try to avoid care fees.

Germanshepherdsmum

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that arrangement and I haven’t said otherwise.

Maybe not, GSM - you are usually very precise, for obvious reasons, but I am sure that you assumed that the arrangement must have been made to avoid fees, and that you said that it was fraudulent? I haven't gone back to look, though, and it doesn't really matter who said what. On these threads it is always assumed that anyone who criticises the current system is looking down on 'the feckless', is oblivious to the obvious fact that not everyone can save ££££ for old age, and has a valuable house and lots of money squirrelled away for their idle offspring. Again, without looking back over 7 pages I can't be certain, but I am pretty sure that nobody has said anything of the kind.

You weren't the only one, volver.

Sorry I spoke.

You weren't the only one, volver.

Whichever way you look at it, old people deserve far better than this, and in a country as rich as the UK there is no reason why they can't have it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that arrangement and I haven’t said otherwise.

I'm Spartacus ?

As for having care at home and paying for it? Good luck with that. I speak from experience.

I am about to move 120 miles from my husband into rented accommodation, because even if you pay for it, there is no care to be had at home for my DF. So I have to do it. This is not how I had planned for my sixties to be.

What a country.

However I think that what you eventually said is that you and your husband had done was to arrange for your home to be held as tenants in common so you each had a share you could leave as you wished in your wills, and that the wills allow the surviving spouse to live in the house as long as they wish, which is perfectly fine.

This (and what BOB has described as the arrangement she and her family have entered into) is what our solicitor suggested to us, and yes, people have said that it is immoral, that it wouldn't mean that the house might have to be sold, and even that it was fraudulent. As I've said, we decided against it, as the solicitor also pointed out that the possibility that Lathyrus mentioned could happen, and neither of us wanted that for the other.

I agree that the system needs an overhaul, as it is riddled with inconsistencies, and whilst I have taken everyone's comments on board, I still think that it is deeply unfair.

Ok, it wasn’t you who told me to listen to you it was someone else. Let’s clear this up for once and for all. We are tenants in common and have been for a number of years. Who ever goes first has left their 50% share to my son in a trust, under the terms of the trust who ever is left can live there rent free, my son cannot sell it without my agreement and I can’t without his. Who ever is left is responsible for the upkeep. When the other dies then he has a 100% share and when my son dies the house will go to the grandchildren. If we are both alive and kicking and one has to go into care then the financial assessment will use a 50% in their assessment and if it is kept then a charge will be be put on the 50 share to be paid by my son when he has control. There is nothing fraudulent about it, we have taken advice first from a solicitor and then from another who dealt in this area. We also have a solicitor in the family and my closest friend is also a solicitor dealing in property. This hopefully safeguards either all or a large chunk of the asset.

Barmey, I have never told anyone to listen to me rather than their own solicitor. I am retired and can only give informal advice. I have simply said that giving your house to your children and still living there, but not paying a market rent, will not mean the value of the house isn't taken into account if you need care. Nor will it mean that the value of your house is ignored for inheritance tax. None of us can ever say that we will never need care from someone outside our family. However I think that what you eventually said is that you and your husband had done was to arrange for your home to be held as tenants in common so you each had a share you could leave as you wished in your wills, and that the wills allow the surviving spouse to live in the house as long as they wish, which is perfectly fine. You do, however, seem rather confused about the whole thing and nobody can give advice without knowing the full facts.

I shall have care at home and pay for it, also the grandchildren have said not to worry. I am happy and that’s what counts

To be fair you didn’t say until later that the trust had a condition to allow either of you to live rent free. I was just concerned that you hadn’t had all the possibilities explained to you.

It sounds like you have covered all the bases.

Hopefully there’s enough spare money to allow you to have care of your choice when the time comes or your son will be able to fund you. My friend’s last year in the Care Home that I talked about upthread was truly awful because she had no access to the money that had been placed in trust?

I have been judged, told to listen to GSM instead of my solicitor, told I need a different solicitor or words to that effect. Told I would have to pay rent and told its fraud. Well most of you want good quality care in a care home, care provided by people like my granddaughters, caring for you on a minimum wage whilst they will never ever be able to do the same in their old age. That’s morally wrong and if this rotten government can’t put in place a system to help then I will by giving them the money that the government can’t have.

It can be used for that, but it also describes what someone is doing if they do that or something similar.

Ah right. I've only ever heard that phrase used as a criticism - ie about someone greedy who wants to both eat the cake and still have it.

That wasn't a judgment. That was a comparison. I said people were not allowed to hand their house to their children and live in it without paying rent and compared it with having your cake and eating it. ie it cannot be done.