What's this scheme called please

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

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.

You weren't the only one, volver.

Sorry I spoke.

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.

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.

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

Thank you Barmeyoldbat

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

So sorry to hear that, volver

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

Thanks everyone. Sorry to have derailed the thread.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Yes, but if you spilt the assets so that each of you owns half, and then make a will so that a third party inherits whilst the surviving spouse has a right to stay there, the house is protected.

That could be (and is) variously described as prudent and immoral, when the reasons for doing so are assumed, rather than known.

I wonder if I am misunderstanding something fundamental here? . The idea was suggested to us as a legal way to protect the house if we needed care down the line.

As I see it, people are saying that it is immoral to do anything to avoid paying fees, which is what this scheme is doing, and how it was presented to us. Yet it is, according to the same people, perfectly ok to do it if it is done for reasons unconnected to protecting your assets, yet no-one knows what those reasons are in any given case, and no-one needs to know?

I'm not being sarcastic - I just don't see how all of that can apply. I hope it makes sense, as I am about to head out to get soaked on my way to lunch.

If you make a will leaving your house to someone else on condition that your spouse can continue to live there, the will only comes into operation when you die and therefore no longer require care. In the meantime you continue to own it. If before you die you need care, the house will be included in your assets for the purpose of assessing care fees. The terms of the will are irrelevant. The spouse won’t be turned out but the local authority will place a charge on the house to recover unpaid fees (plus interest) when the spouse leaves. The person to whom the house was left in the will won’t get it unless they can pay off the care fees debt.

So do the same rules apply whether a couple are tenants in common or joint? And whether their bank accounts are joint or separate?

I still think the basic premise whereby B pays fees and A doesn’t is wrong, but if the answers to the above questions are both yes, then things are more straightforward.

Thanks for bearing with me ?

If a couple own their home as tenants in common each of them can leave their interest in it to whoever they want and can stipulate that the other spouse can live there as long as they wish. Their share would be taken into account when assessing care costs and again the will is irrelevant until the death of the spouse who made it. If they own the house as joint tenants I don’t know if the local authority would take into account the entire value but I suspect they might. On the first death the survivor would automatically inherit the house, subject to any charge the LA may have placed on it for unpaid fees.

GSM I did ask not only the solicitor but a close friend who deals with the assessments, she is the financial assessments in the area my daughter lived. If you are tenants in common and one of you die and their 50% share is left to someone else, then if you need care they will only take into account 50% of the value of the property because that is all they own. There are w ways of looking at this, you, rather than waiting for the government have put a cap on what you can pay. You are not avoiding paying fees for care altogether just a reduced amount. I have done my sums, should I end up in a care home because I couldn’t take my morphine quickly enough then with my share of the house, pensions and savings I am ok for about 3 to 4 years. The other is to protect family members in the case of 2nd marriages. Please be aware I still don’t have any glasses so bear with me for mistakes.

Whilst you have your 50% share you will be assessed on it. The LA don't ignore it because you've left it to someone else in your will!

Germanshepherdsmum

Whilst you have your 50% share you will be assessed on it. The LA don't ignore it because you've left it to someone else in your will!

No, but if, say, Mr Dog left his share of an 'in common' ownership of our house to the children, and I lived there until I needed care, the LA would only take my share into account against fees, which would already be at least some inheritance for the children. If we had also separated our savings, and his share of those had also gone to the children, then presumably they could keep that, and I would have £23k of whatever was left that I was allowed to keep? So I would still have to pay some fees, but the maximum would be 50% of the house value plus 50% of the savings minus £23k?

So unless this is wrong, let's assume that A and B above are, in fact, triplets, all of whom have had identical careers on identical salaries, and all need care in old age. For the sake of argument, let's also assume that they married men who were also employed in identical salaries and who all pre-deceased their wives:

* A gets her fees paid in full.

* B pays 100% of hers as she lives for long enough in the home to use up 100% of the house she has owned outright since her husband died.

* Neither A's nor B's children get anything.

* C, who has protected her assets as outlined at the start of this post pays only a percentage of her fees, and her children inherit 50% of the house value, 50% of the parental life savings, plus £23k disregard on C's savings.

But this is all fair?

No I am afraid it’s not fair but that is the way it is at the moment and something needs to be done to make it a fairer system for all from those with low assets to to those with more. So I make no apologies to anyone on this thread for having undertaken to protect some of my assets.

Thanks Doodledog for explaining it so well and clearly

Whilst I am hopefully at least 7 years away from the end of my life I am ensuring that my two adult children receive as much financial support from me as possible without leaving me short of money. I hope to be able to do this so that if my home needs to be sold to fund care for me it won't matter that there is no inheritance for them. I prefer to see them have the advantage of the money now and be pleased that they are not struggling.