It's an inheritence one...

All the people on this thread who are talking about parents buying nearby aren’t the ones answering the fall alarm at 3 in the morning in December, are they?

Or drying the urine soaked carpet before they go home because of the reason the fall alarm went off in the first place?

I am going to be in this situation soon, except I already own my own house outright and if my DSib’s, who haven’t set foot in my DP’s house in 15 years care to have an opinion, it had better be “yes dear” and nothing else.

Well, are your siblings annoyed enough to provide the care themselves? Long term caring rips your life and earning capacity to shreds and should be compensated by those who sit back and let it happen.

I don't really understand why, given that your parents have already sold their house and are renting, they couldn't have just moved close to your new house (in another rental property)? The current plan seems to have so many disadvantages (pissing off your siblings, muddying the waters when it comes to inheritance because some of their money is tied up in your house, possible deprivation of assets, you and DH living in a house that isn't the one you would otherwise have chosen, you and DH ending up with an empty/pointless annexe if your parents eventually need to move to a care home). It all just seems unnecessarily complicated, and I can see why your sibling feels annoyed.

That's not really how the OP describes it though. She says that they need to move and can't afford to buy locally. She also says that logistically she can no longer provide care unless her parents are really close by - and that's perfectly reasonable. It's really, really hard to provide lots of care even when it's a relatively short car trip. You're constantly going back and forth and just end up with no quality of life.

It sounds as if OP and her parents had a chat and collectively came up with the idea of the annexe. She didn't twist their arm or approach them with some devious scheme to wangle a bigger house out of them.

Genuinely, what's the alternative to the annexe? OP moves to a place she can afford and can no longer provide care to her parents? That seems to be the only option. Neither of her siblings want to provide care, and neither are willing to have the parents live with them.

I don't think it's unreasonable to say I can't continue to provide care if it involves me constantly trekking between two houses. The OP will be saving her parents quite literally thousands and thousands of pounds in care fees by providing care to them via the annexe. Time has a value and I bet that when everything reaches its natural conclusion, if OP placed a value on the hours she will spend caring, she'll have sacrificed more financially than she's gained.

The siblings needs to understand that OP's time has a value, and that by providing care, it equates to many thousands of pounds of saved money for the parents - of which they'll receive a healthy share via inheritance.

If the siblings don't like it then they're welcome to step up and provide the live-in care themselves - but funnily enough they're not so keen on that idea. Wonder why?!

I would feel very differently if my parents approached one of my siblings and asked for this than if one of my siblings said to my parents "if you don't pay towards a house with an annex then we'll move away from you and won't do any more care."

I can see why they're upset. You and your DC have already got a closer relationship with them and it could be seen as bribed your parents into paying 35% of your home... Which no doubt you'll keep when they die plus get 1/3 of everything else on top.
They may also feel you're the favourite, and might, if circumstances were different and they were living close have been happy to do the care.
35% of a house with an annex round here would almost certainly be into the 100k s of pounds and we're not the most expensive area.

We've actually just done this too OP - we moved in at the end of last year. The financial set-up is a little different here, we opted for a Trust instead.

From the legal advice we received at the time, from multiple sources, the intent when moving in is key to whether it's deprivation of assets. If you're moving in with the knowledge that your parents are likely to need care in the foreseeable future and you want to avoid fees, then it's deprivation of assets. If however, you have genuine reasons for the move - which you do - and you're not just doing it to avoid the fees, then you shouldn't be at risk for being classed as deprivation of assets.

The fact is that this is the only way you can continue to provide care for your parents. You have very valid reasons for making this decision which can be demonstrated.

Yes, it's harder in some ways being constantly on call. But also in other ways it's SO much easier being able to pop into the annexe than trek across the other side of the town when there's a small problem. If my mum's light bulb blows then I can stay in my pjs and dressing gown, and sort things out in five minutes. Even if she only lived a few streets away (which would be hard to organise unless you were lucky to find two properties close to each other) it's still a massive faff to have to get dressed, get in the car, drive over there etc.

If you're the type of person who can cope with providing care to elderly parents, an annexe is a great solution. It's not for everyone, but it works for us.

I understand it's tricky with siblings because money is a delicate issue. But a PP suggestion of costing out the care you are providing would be an interesting exercise. Care packages cost hundreds, or sometimes even a couple of thousand, every week. If you weren't providing that, your parents would have to pay that money out, leaving less for your siblings anyway.

Hopefully your parents have many years left. And if they do, by providing care to them, you'll be ensuring that there is some inheritance left for your siblings. If you hadn't been willing to step up and provide the care, there's a very good chance there would be no inheritance left for anyone after they'd paid out thousands in care fees over the years.

You might well be benefitting financially from a bigger house, but there's a cost to you too. Your time is valuable, and it's a fair trade when everything is considered. I actually suspect that in the end, the money that you'll have saved your parents in care fees will come to far more than you'll have gained financially. Your time has a value and this is something that's often ignored.

I have siblings/step-siblings and they won't benefit financially from this house, and they aren't named in the Trust. I don't feel bad because I have already spent many, many hours of my life supporting my DM and my stepdad while they barely manage a birthday card or phone call. We didn't make this move for financial reasons either - I was moving house to give my DC a bedroom each and my DM/stepdad wanted to stay close. This was the solution we found and honestly, there's no regrets.

Whist is your and your husband divorce? Then their housing becomes vulnerable?

This is complex, and I think you are not on safe ground regards deprivation of assets and potentially inheritance tax. I can also understand your sibling being a bit miffed.
can you afford to buy a house with an annex on your own? Then your parents can pay you rent and perhaps a regular amount for help?

“If the only workable way is for an annex then it should be partly in their name (ie they own 35% of the property). I understand why it would go in your name but I personally think tax avoidance and hiding wealth in that way to avoid care fees is pretty low, though I accept a lot of people do it”

@RobinBobbing This is offensive quite frankly. OP, anyone who suggests that you’re “low” by moving your parents in with you to care for them, and that you’re motivated by tax and care fee avoidance has no idea what they are talking about and has never lived through it. You dont even want the annexe…. You just don’t want to have to travel to meet their needs.

I'm not sure how the situation is really much different to forward paying the rent they’d otherwise have been paying to live somewhere else close by?

Not the same. Spouse or dependent relative can stay. Not non dependent adult children.

They probably wouldn’t be able to choose the care home if it was council funded though.

I can also see where the siblings are coming from, obviously the parents can do what they want with their money but the
siblings arent being unreasonable to be upset.

What if you and your DH both die have you changed your wills so your parents get a lifetime tenancy in the house?

You really need to protect your parent's home in every circumstance.

Who are guardians to your children? They could sell the home from under your parents feet and make them homeless should anything happen to you and your DH.

If her parents die within 7 years of gifting this money and run up big care bills then there could also still be a risk of deprivation of assets and money owed.
This isn’t the case, you are muddling up inheritance tax and deprivation of assets which can be checked for any amount of years.

Against the grain but I can understand why your sibling feels it isn’t fair.

if they hadn’t moved, would the family house have been split 3 equal ways when they die? If so why wouldn’t that still be the rough allocation of assets.

Of course there may be no inheritance, and your parents are entitled to spend it how they want but it sounds like there is a sizeable amount and you should be aiming for as similar to equal as possible.

Why can’t you buy your house, where you want it to be, they buy one very close.
theirs is sold and all assets split when they die (hopefully not for a very long time!)

If the only workable way is for an annex then it should be partly in their name (ie they own 35% of the property). I understand why it would go in your name but I personally think tax avoidance and hiding wealth in that way to avoid care fees is pretty low, though I accept a lot of people do it.

It sounds like the sibling hasn’t handled things very reasonably. But if the sibling is only getting upset now you have almost completed on the house did you really do all this without discussing it with them? I’d be upset too if I was your sibling.

And finally if the only way you will accept is that they give you the large sum of money then that absolutely should be equalled up in any other assets if they die - you still want your third of anything left after you’ve taken 1/3 of a very large house?! That’s not reasonable.

it sounds like you think that you deserve your parents money if you support them. Yet your support should be because of love, not because you are being paid to do it.

I thought if another adult lives in the home then it couldn’t be sold.

Homes aren’t sold when one half of a married couple move to a care home.

Oof this is a tough one.

I’ve been thinking about the inheritance side and it sounds very complex… I’m not sure I can add a lot to that but there were a couple of other things I wanted to say.

1. It feels like you are making a huge commitment here… even the mention that they could use the spare room in your house if needed. As someone who has been through the worst case scenario when it comes to two parents, please don’t underestimate how long this could go on. Your family life could change unrecognisably and for several years and there’s is a risk you feel obligated to providing increasingly more care as they grow older. Is this something you’ve discussed? What happens if you can’t manage, have you agreed that you then spend their money on carers coming in … as well as having received their money for the house? You need to set boundaries with siblings too as to what they can expect you to do and what not
2. In doing this you’re effectively becoming the family home… do your siblings Come back often and if they do where will the stay? With you, or just visiting but stay somewhere else? It’s another dynamic change to be aware of.
3. please don’t underestimate how much this changes things for your DH and any children too, be mindful you still need to create your time together.

Because if her parents required a care home then the council would put a charge on the house to pay for it then on the death of her parents would expect the house to be sold to pay back the money.

If her parents die within 7 years of gifting this money and run up big care bills then there could also still be a risk of deprivation of assets and money owed.

I’m sure he’s honorable but that wouldn’t be enough for me if it were my parents , sorry. Things can change, life is like that.

And what about if you get fed up of being a carer or can longer manage? Could they afford sheltered housing / a home or help ?

But if your parents end up in care, they don't need the annexe, so of course, the house should be sold to release their money to pay for their care. You and your family can then buy a suitable sized house for your family with your money.

It doesn't seem reasonable for you to expect to keep such a big chunk of your parents money. Mostly because they might need it for their care, but also you're shafting your siblings.

Maybe consider a pair of semis (each own your own), or two separate properties close by each other (again, each own your own).

Why couldn’t you have jointly bought the new home with your parents so you all own it?

This isnt totally true. Deprivation of assets to avoid care home fees is complex. You have already mentioned that your DPs need support, which is one of the reasons you want them to live with you. There is no time limit as to how far back local authorities can check for DOA when it’s obvious that someone’s home has been sold specifically to avoid paying for care. You could end up ion the position of having 2 parents needing residential care with no money to pay for it because they've deprived themselves of it to allow you to buy a biog house.
Morally, it’s a terrible thing to do, as your DPs may well end up in less than ideal residential care because you’re sitting on their assets. But youre obviously only considering the finances!
In addition, you will financially benefit from having 65% of your house paid for gaining in value over the years far more than a similar amount in savings would. Yet you still want to keep all this money.
Your DPs could buy a small bungalow near your home, live there comfortably and eventually it would be used for care home fees should the need arise without you needing to sell your home.