Making sure my children get my house when I’ve passed

I agree with you that it is very unfair that some people have to pay for care in old age when others don't, but I'm not sure that there is a foolproof way around it.

When we made our wills, the solicitor mentioned the sort of thing you mean, which is when you each leave your share of the estate to your children with the proviso that the surviving spouse can live there for the rest of their life.

As you are widowed, you wouldn't need to do this, but could leave your house to your children on the understanding that you could live there until your own death.

The most worrying thing (IMO at least) is that this could leave you in a position where you may not have enough of your own money in your own name to make choices about things like which care home to go into, so you would be left with what was available from the council at the time you needed it.

I think that you would also have to live for seven years after doing this, otherwise it could be considered deliberate deprivation of assets, and could be reversed by the courts.

It is desperately unfair, and it is about time that Johnson acted on his pledge to sort this out - he made the promise to do this years ago, but as usual it was a lie.

I agree with you that it is very unfair that some people have to pay for care in old age when others don't, but I'm not sure that there is a foolproof way around it.

When we made our wills, the solicitor mentioned the sort of thing you mean, which is when you each leave your share of the estate to your children with the proviso that the surviving spouse can live there for the rest of their life.

As you are widowed, you wouldn't need to do this, but could leave your house to your children on the understanding that you could live there until your own death.

The most worrying thing (IMO at least) is that this could leave you in a position where you may not have enough of your own money in your own name to make choices about things like which care home to go into, so you would be left with what was available from the council at the time you needed it.

I think that you would also have to live for seven years after doing this, otherwise it could be considered deliberate deprivation of assets, and could be reversed by the courts.

It is desperately unfair, and it is about time that Johnson acted on his pledge to sort this out - he made the promise to do this years ago, but as usual it was a lie.

Oops - I felt that so strongly I said it twice ?

I mentioned about this on another thread the other day. My DH and I asked our solicitor about this I can't remember the detail. Our property is in trust for our DS and DD to protect it when we die. We were thinking about it when our parents were ill and it care. Look into it it will put your mind at rest.

My aunt and uncle had some sort of trust arranged by their solicitor and a bank and it cost my cousin thousands of pounds to get out of it after their deaths.

Our house is owned as tenants in common with my children inheriting my portion of the house and my husband's children inheriting his. The solicitor has worded it to protect everyone and made it so the money can be transferred by the remaining partner to another property (maybe a retirement flat).

I have mixed feelings about this tbh.
Thinking about my sil and bil- they bought a house for 50000 in the 70s, it is now worth 3.5 mio. Yes they have made alterations, etc and spent money on it- but ...

Why should adult children, who have often done well themselves due to the good start their parents gave them- expect to inherit all whilsts others with far less pay for their parents' care?

Our house has also greatly increased in value- and so has our second holiday home. Not as above- but even so. I think there should be a threshold- or thresholds, in stages.

There is no way to guarantee that your children inherit the house if you have to go into care. There are lots of schemes but at the end of the day you will have to pay or be sued for deprivation of assets. Putting the house in a trust does not guarantee anything. Inland Revenue look at all assets over the last few years.
There are some very dodgy financial advisors out there.
Also if you pay for your care yourself you get to choose where you go.

Well somebody has to pay if you need care. If you can’t use your capital will your children have enough spare income to cover the costs?

Or are you thinking that other peoples children should pay for your care through their taxes?

Me, I’m looking to my house to fund my care in a really nice place. Using my hard work to take care of myself?

Exactly what dragonfly said!

HMRC can look back as far as they like to see whether they feel that you did it to get out of paying for care.

Why should the taxpayer pick up your care bill so that your children can collect the money from your house? Doesn’t really seem fair or promote an equal society. I’m sure your children can make their own way in life...

dragonfly46

There is no way to guarantee that your children inherit the house if you have to go into care. There are lots of schemes but at the end of the day you will have to pay or be sued for deprivation of assets. Putting the house in a trust does not guarantee anything. Inland Revenue look at all assets over the last few years.
There are some very dodgy financial advisors out there.
Also if you pay for your care yourself you get to choose where you go.

This intrigues me as I know of several situations where this has happened and in every case it appears to have worked.

A colleagues Mum has recently gone into "council" care all paid for and her property apparently can't be touched because it's in trust for the colleague and her sister!

I have my personal opinion about it but.......

We need social care sorted now!

I'm another who thinks we should feel better disposed to using our own assets if we have them.

My mother-in-law is concerned we inherit from her "hard work" but frankly, 90% of people work hard in my opinion and some benefit out of all proportion.

If we spend all our inheritance from my mother-in-law in order to give her the very, very best available, so be it. That she is well looked after (if not by us) is way more important.

Deel Most councils will look hard into this before they will fork out money if property is involved. They have been known to bill the relatives who are benefitting from the house.

As NotSpaghetti says lots of people work hard to own their own home but some benefit more than others. My parents sold their property to have good care and did not resent it. Why should others pay for your care when you can afford it yourself?

Why should others pay for your care when you can afford it yourself?
Who decides who can 'afford' what?

We have had this discussion before, but IMO we should all be taxed fairly, and enough to cover care for everyone who needs it, along with providing health, education and transport, and after that we should be able to decide what to do with what's left.

The other side to the 'why should others pay' argument is 'why should others pay for the care of those who have spend their earnings instead of saving?' It is very unfair to have a system where some people get free care and others don't.

The rich are fine, the poor get it free, and those in the middle - people who have worked and saved - are reduced to paupers by having to spend all their money to sit in a care home next to someone who was quite possibly on a similar or higher income, but chose to spend it as they earned it.

dragonfly46

Deel Most councils will look hard into this before they will fork out money if property is involved. They have been known to bill the relatives who are benefitting from the house.

As NotSpaghetti says lots of people work hard to own their own home but some benefit more than others. My parents sold their property to have good care and did not resent it. Why should others pay for your care when you can afford it yourself?

I totally agree...as far as I'm concerned, if it had meant providing excellent care for my parents, they could have had whatever they wanted!

To be honest I struggle over the whole issue with my colleagues situation. It seems rather unfair and unjust.

I also agree with you dragonfly, what would happen if everyone made sure that their home couldn't be sold in order to pay for any care they need?

Mr. S.'s mum is in a lovely facility that the proceeds from the sale of her bungalow, and her savings are paying for. Neither him nor any of his siblings have a problem with this and why should they.

You can legally sign your house over to your children whilst you are alive.
They are getting their inheritance early.

Yes you can but must live for 7 years after wards and this should be done with good legal advice.

We know of a case where mother and father signed their house over to their D without making any provision for themselves. After his wife died, the D had him removed and sold the house.

OMG Smileless.
That`s a dreadfull thing to do.
I don`t know how D could live with themselves.

I went to the solicitor to see about this trust thing and they told me that it’s not worth doing
I fall outside getting any benefits because when I retired I put some money into an account that I can’t use for a few years but obviously it takes my savings over getting any benefits although from my annual income I would qualify
The reason I want my house to go to my children smileless is because it’s the one and only thing of any value I ve ever owned it’s not much value either, probably last me a year in a care home
My children received absolutely nothing when their father died not even a penny or a souvenir, just zilch They have no other relatives to give them a thing I sweated to pay the mortgage on my house bringing them up on my own and religiously paying that mortgage every month, care home fees are exorbitant and I hope I can manage in my home intil I disappear from this world I don’t want to lose the one thing I do own

As Dee1012 said, it is unfair.
We sold my mother's house to pay for her care and there were people there who were being paid for by the council.
We paid more than the council were paying for exactly the same care so that was a double whammy.

We know of a case where mother and father signed their house over to their D without making any provision for themselves. After his wife died, the D had him removed and sold the house.

I have heard third had accounts of this sort of thing happening, but it has never happened to anyone I know first hand.

Of course it is legally possible if the parents haven't plugged the gaps in their will, but the gaps can be plugged easily enough, and I can't imagine that many children would behave like this anyway.

We considered doing it, but in the end decided not to, as we felt that as the house and half of our savings would be 'in limbo' (not belonging to the children until the death of the surviving parent, and not belonging fully to that parent either), we would lose control over what happened to us if we needed care.

It is a shameful state of affairs that people even need to think about doing something like this, IMO. I am a firm believer in everyone paying their way through life, but I get so fed up with some people getting things free (whether it's pensions, access to means-tested advantages or social care amongst other things) that I can well understand why people look for loopholes.

It needs sorting out fairly ASAP, in line with Johnson's broken promise of ages ago.

Also. When people go on about those who bought houses for £1 and are sitting on millions, do they realise how London-centric they are being? For much of the country, paying for care on the strength of the money in their homes sill clean them out very quickly. The famous 'boomer' who is sitting on millions and a fat pension earned by her husband is a rare breed in the pretty much anywhere but the SE. It is one thing to eat into your children's inheritance, and quite another to wipe it out altogether.

This is yet another anomaly that is always overlooked when these things are discussed and when policies are made.

Sorry, third-hand, not third had.