forced house sale

I would have thought that he could not be made to sell what would be his home to pay for your care fees?

Do go to the CAB and get some advice on this and all the ramifications of any actions you might take. If you are not currently in need of care there are different rules to those which cover the situation if you are currently needing care. You can safeguard his money if you get good advice before you do anything.

bichonmad. Was your will written as Tennents in common. If it was then you and your son are fine. If not, get it changed.
Just type in 'Tennents in common' all will be explained. This should have been explained to you when you drew up your will.

Talk to AgeUk.

I think it could be very complicated particularly if your son wants to extend the house before he inherits his half.
As others say you really must get proper advice ASAP from age UK or the CAB.

If you do not pay your own care costs the local authority will means test you to see what income and capital you have and work out what they will contribute. If you and your son own the house jointly you will be assessed on your share of its value. If he wants to add value to the property you should have a trust deed drawn up showing the proportions you then own the property in, based on the contributions each of you made.

If you go into care and he is living in the house, and is aged over 60 at that time, the house will be disregarded as an asset. If he is under 60 you will be assessed as owning a share of it and it will be treated as notional capital. The council would need a court order to force him to sell it, which is unlikely to be granted. You would probably be offered a deferred payment scheme so your care costs, plus interest would come out of your share when the house is eventually sold. His share should be safe.

Are care costs avoidable by this sort of thing? Should they be? I must say we were pretty unimpressed to be told by a cousin the lengths he and his mother had gone to in order to avoid paying for her care. He got away with it too.

I don't think that's the issue here jane - I think it's just that the OP doesn't want her son to lose the roof over his head, or the money he had invested in the property, should she have to go into care.

Maybe not in this case but it seems that it is in others

This is a good article about deliberate deprivation of assets - when assessing someone's assets for the purposes of deciding if someone is eligible for funding, local authorities can take into account any capital that has been gifted with the purpose of avoiding care fees.
www.which.co.uk/elderly-care/financing-care/gifting-assets/343063-what-are-the-rules-for-gifting-assets
Perhaps your cousin's LA wasn't very diligent jane. I agree people shouldn't be allowed to 'get away with it' because basically they are stealing from other tax payers.

I'm in the States and the laws here are probably somewhat different. But, my guess is, that, if anything, the value of your half of the house might be looked at to pay for your care. However, advice from a legal professional is probably best here.

As for avoiding care fees, Jane and janeainsworth, I see by the linked article that the laws here are somewhat different. Here in the States, there's a 5-yr lookback period. If the gift of a house or whatever, is given 5 years or more before the elderly person goes into a nursing home, it's legally ok. In the article, I see that in the UK, there's no definite time limit. But it also says they don't look back too far.

So if your cousin "got away with it," chances are, he did it all legally (sigh). As I'm sure you know, unfortunately, what's "legal" doesn't always mesh with what's "ethical" or what you or I might feel is "morally right."

The rules here (England and Wales) are that if it was "foreseeable" that care would be required in the medium term, which the courts have interpreted to mean, "more than a mere statistical possibility", then there is a presumption of intent to deliberately deprive oneself of assets.

If assets are gifted, or preferably put in trust, for perfectly good reasons (and I can think of at least a dozen possible reasons) at a time when you are reasonably fit and your doctor has not started to discuss care, then it would be "unreasonable" (and therefore subject to legal challenge) for a local authority to decide there had been deliberate deprivation.

I have set up dozens of such trusts, but turned down or advised against two or three times as many where the circumstances were not right.