Family home dilemma

Just been through all this with my mum. It’s very complicated and only applies if, for whatever reason , the council is paying towards fees( which may be because the person has no money , which means the Council won’t get it back, or as part of a “ deferred payment “ scheme where they are paying for the care now, but will recoup it in due course). A “ top up fee” is the difference between what the council will pay for care and what the care home charges. Some homes just charge the basic fee, many others charge a top up fee. That is deemed to be the family’s responsibility and can’t be paid by the person who needs care.

In France it is the children's duty to pay for their parents. I hope I have invested wisely

"In France it is the children's duty to pay for their parents."
Yes, and I heard of one case where the mother of an english family went into a care home in France. The family had returned to the UK but the french authorities pursued them there and they had to pay in the end.
I'm saying no more on this as I have strong views, same as Mumofmadboys.

I too feel strongly about this as I had to sell my parents home to pay for their care. My mother is still alive at 98 and has dementia. I do not see why others, who have deliberately or not given away their assets, should get paid for by the council.

'Why should the state pay for your father's care?'
Firstly we wrinklies went to hell and back buying our own homes with massive percentage interest. We were told this would be our children's inheritance. (No mention that people would be able to access their pension pots, fritter it and the rest of us would support them)
Secondly, as taxpayers in 60s, 70s, 80s, etc we have paid for the care of the older folk of previous generations, subsidised care, council-owned warden-assisted etc. That's all gone, sold off, and the owners have to make a profit. Now it's our turn, and we are incredibly selfish apparently.
I didn't sell it all, I didn't privatise geriatric care, and I didn't benefit from our society's change of heart that all of us should be responsible after our old and vulnerable.
Lastly we have the tiniest state pension in Europe, but even when I was working full-time I wouldn't have had the income to pay care home fees.

Are DB and I legally obliged to sell the house to pay for his care which will be roughly £1000 a week? Dad has some savings that will facilitate around 18 months care costs
My brother is considering buying my share of the house from me and will live there with his family when Dad has left the property. But would that mean my brother may be liable for Dad’s care costs if a top up is needed?

For those saying it’s unfair to not pay for Dads care....and expect the government to pay.
I have stated that there is enough cash to pay for 18 months plus care initially. It’s in the original post. Nor have I said we are not willing to pay. We absolutely are.

Am I the only one to be ?

There is sufficient money to pay for the first 18 months of care, if it is needed, and you say you are willing to continue paying after that time if need be, presumably from yours and your brother's funds or income.

So I cannot see the problem.

Am I missing something?

Under 16 dla
16-65 pip
65+ AA65+

annsixty has a good idea, to rent the house out, to make his money for Care Home fees go further.
You may never need to sell it as the 7 year rule will apply.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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,

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.

Thank you, Annaraml.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.