To feel grabby and uncomfortable with this.

[abstractplantpot]

Background - i'm married with kids we own our house and a small business. Sister single by choice owns her own house works full time and has a horse.

My father died 5 yrs ago and mum is left with the house they lived in and a small savings pot. She has been diagnosed with dementia and is needing increasing care.

My sister had talked about either renting her house out or selling it to move in with mum as she would eventually like to live in that house herself. This is fine by me. At the moment we share her care. I also do all the household business like keeping bills paid ensuring she has food and everything she needs.

Sister was advised by "the girls in work" to get legal advice before she did this as she could end up loosing out. I agreed and wanted us to get the correct info on how to do this legally and above board.

I couldn't go with her as i had no child care for the time she made the appointment so she went alone.

She has come back from the solicitor and said she doesn't need to move in with mum. She wants to open a bank account in her name and my name and transfer mums savings to it. Then get the house put into our names. with a document saying mum can live there untill she's no longer able.

For me this doesn't solve the problem of mum needing care! She has gone into that appointment trying to protect her inheritance and not looked at how we can help mum.

She's telling me she needs to look after her own interests as she hasn't got anyone else to do it for her. I have a husband she has no one. She is pushing me to do this quickly as she said we have to have it done for three years otherwise if mum goes into a home she will loose the house.

She isn't listening when i mention this doesn't help with caring for mum.

i do not want to do the joint account as it will mean my earnings for this year will push up to the next tax bracket. we own a business and this will be an asset. She's happy to move it into an account
solely in her name which again i'm fine
with but what about caring for mum.

Am i being unreasonable for being uncomfortable with this. I was happy to do it when she was moving into the house (happy to get deeds in her name or joint names not the bank account) to care for mum when she wasn't at work. i'd have gone in during the day. But now she's forgotten all about mum and is concentrating on the money.

How can i make her see i'm unhappy with this with out seeming i'm selfish.
thanks.

Because they expect you and me as taxpayers to fund their relatives care so that they can have a tidy inheritance protected.

Further to my comment above, I meant to say family protection trust, a type of
asset protection trust which flowersintheattic you refer to in your comment, not family property trust. Info in text and link below.

“Deliberate deprivation of assets

Local authorities - which must carry out an individual assessment if someone needs a care home placement - are increasingly investigating asset protection trusts to ensure that they haven't been set up to as a way to get out of paying up, particularly where a substantial application for assistance with care is made.

There is a risk that the local authority can ignore the trust and treat the assets as if you owned them, if they can show that you put them into the trust as an act of "deliberate deprivation" to avoid having to pay for your care fees.

There is a common misconception that this only applies for the first seven years after setting up the trust, but in fact there is no such time limit. It is therefore important to be able to show that at the time the trust was set up, you were in good health and had no reason to expect that you would need to go into a care home.

Timing

The key issue is timing - when the person made the gift to the trust, could they have reasonably known that they might need care? For example, if the individual was already ill when they signed the property over to a relative, it might look suspiciously like 'deliberate deprivation'.

An Asset Protection Trust can be a useful tool for protecting your assets for your and your family's sake but it is essential to set it up when you are in reasonable health and financially solvent, and to take proper professional advice before doing so.”

By putting the house in our names, 'mum's' house would become assets of her children's estates. We are all married, with property and two of us have businesses. If any of us were to divorce, get into debt, go bankrupt, or just turn into a jerk and try to get 'our' asset, mums house might have to be sold from under her to fund one of the siblings.

Thats exactly what happened to a relation of my DH.

They tried to be smart and put their two houses in their son’s name when they paid the mortgage off with an inheritance a few years before planned retirement.

He then predeceased them very very unexpectedly. His will left everything to his three children. There was an attempt to persuade them to do a variation of the will, but one of his children was on benefits. So it couldn’t be done.

The grandparents ended up with a mortgage and having to work much later than planned and the bitterness destroyed their relationship with their grandchildren.

I have 3 lovely friends in my close circle of friends. All 3 ended up with next to no inheritance after care home fees were paid for a few years. They didn't care because their parents were well cared for, one in a specialist dementia care home where her mum was treated brilliantly. All they wanted was the reassurance that they were getting the best care. I just don't understand this greedy mentality of trying to fiddle the system.

@Babyroobs
It isn't 'fiddling the system', it's legal, which is why a financial advisor suggested it. It isn't illegal to gift your children a portion of a house. Mum is only 70 and fit and well and we were looking into a number of options for her assets and long term care of which this was one option. Her house is the only thing of value and she is afraid of wasting her one asset on care or equity release (avoid this!!)

Do people pay more tax then they need to voluntarily?

As i said, we didn't even go for it in the end as it is so risky and will as a result pay probably half a million in ih tax assuming it isn't sold to pay for her own care which is as it should be and more then worth the cost of insuring mum's home is safe while she is alive. It is our childhood home, we wanted to keep it if at all possible.

One thing I will say the current system is hard on those who need long-term care due to illnesses such as dementia. The government adult social care charging reforms that under Johnson were due to be implemented in October 2023 would have introduced a £86,000 cap on personal care. However, govt now delaying until October 2025. Cameron originally delayed back in 2015 then dropped. See this delay being dropped too eventually.

It’s so sad that people see their parents spending their earned money on their own care as wasted.

It’s their money so should be funding their life.

@Lovelysausagedogscrumpy

The daughter has never owned a property. She is giving up her tenancy on a rental property to move back in with her parents

So you’re saying that someone with dementia, diminished capacity and increasing care needs should have the choice to live where they like regardless of their care and safety?

that sounds grand.
as long as she’s got the choice to leave the gas on or wander into the road in her nightie 🙄

So where in that quote from the OP is there any suggestion of selling or stealing?

@FurAndFeathers the OP said the sister wants to put the mums house in her (and the OPs) names. I’d call that stealing.

OP suggests that it’s what the solicitor has advised.

I guess the sister could suddenly be faking the solitons advice and conspiring to steal everything but it seems a bit out of context from everything the OP has said 🤷‍♀️

At least two solicitors have said on this thread that NO solicitor would suggest this course of action. So it seems very likely that she IS lying.

Even us amateurs who've been through this with elderly parents, know that if they've already been diagnosed with a condition that is likely to mean they need care, you cannot hide their.money or house or move it from person to person. It is deprivation of assets and you WILL be found out.

My mum had saved, in a separate account (but sadly not in their names) an amount to help her GDs with house deposits. Following her massive stroke, despite having full mental capacity and control over her own affairs, she was not able to give it to them, because she needed care due to her physical helplessness and it would be deprivation.of assets.

Yes quite possibly.
or more likely, a misunderstanding of the advice given

Right here when she says She wants to open a bank account in her name and my name and transfer mums savings to it. Then get the house put into our names.

The sister wants to take the money and house of the mother who doesn’t have capacity to agree to this. That is stealing.

And no solicitor or professional person giving ‘legal advice’ would recommend it because it’s downright illegal for a POA to give away assets not in the best interests of the person.

And there is no way that getting rid of the cash of a woman with dementia who will likely need care is in her best interests.

It’s stealing to protect an inheritance.

a helpful misunderstanding to get into exactly the position she wants… very convenient.

Especially when the op is the one with the legal obligations

I wonder how your sister’s chat went with the people in her work- it sounds like they filled her head with your acts not being selfless but being calculated and then played the ‘you’re losing out because you don’t have a family’ card. The fact that she keeps using the word ‘protect’ herself is sad, showing she honestly thinks it’s an out to get her scenario.

I hate inheritance rubbish, I always thought our family wouldn’t be touched by it but it has been massively and we aren’t the siblings we were before. I kind of wish when people went there was one definite way things had to go somehow because now, in the future I hate that my kids will nearly definitely be torn apart by the same shit that I’ve seen with my family, numerous friends’ families, my in laws family, my parents family, my neighbours’ family … A poster above used the word ‘planning’ and ‘prudent.’ I call absolute bs on it- a person’s home is not the right of anyone else, their assets are not the right of anybody else. Period.

In the OP’s case the financial advisor should have known it was too late for this kind of arrangement as the mother had already been diagnosed with dementia, and they should have seen it for what it was - a blatant, grabby attempt to steal cash and property out from under a vulnerable lady. Your assertion that your own mum would be ‘wasting her one asset’ is quite offensive when you consider that not only would being a self funder give her more choice and a better level of care, but that avoiding care fees leaves others picking up the fees.

It’s not a suggestion. It IS stealing. Her mum hasn’t the capacity to agree to what is being proposed and there are laws to protect vulnerable people in this situation. If the OP already has a POA for her mother and agrees to this, she will inevitably be in serious trouble as she is legally responsible for ensuring that her actions are in the best interests of her mother. Which in this case, they are most definitely not.

You seem to have little idea, or regard for the legal safeguards in place for very vulnerable people with dementia. The OP has a POA for her mother, which legally compels her to make all decisions in her mothers’ best interests. Which includes the type of care that is best for her if and when she needs it, and taking into account any safety concerns. If there is no POA, anyone can report suspected financial abuse to the office of the public guardian, and if necessary they can provide a court appointed guardian to ensure that their best interests are considered.

My mum has dementia and I have her POA. She came to live with us long before her diagnosis, as she was getting frail and was at risk of falls. Just because she has dementia, does not mean she lacks capacity to at least have an input into decisions made on her behalf, as some days are better than others and capacity is considered a fluid thing in these matters. The POA demands that I make sure she is consulted has input into every decision I make on her behalf if she has the capacity to do so and I have to consider her stated wishes when making that decision, with the usual provisos regarding safety and appropriateness etc.

So no, having dementia, diminished capacity and increasing care needs doesn’t rob you of basic legal rights and of course you should have a choice as to where and how you spend your later years. Having the funds to give you the choice of better care in an environment you’re happy with, instead of having to accept what social services have to offer even if you hate it, is part of that. And that’s what the OP and her sister will be robbing their mother of by essentially committing fraud and stealing the funds allowing her that choice. And I find your flippant comment and emoji at the end quite offensive. If you’ve ever had to look after a close family member being slowly robbed of their personality and disappearing in front of you, you’ll know that ensuring they don’t leave the gas on or wander into the road in their nightie, is the easiest of things to do for them, basic care, and the least of your worries.

Well said. The people advocating side stepping care fees - which is essentially what financial planning is, legal or not - need to remember that they are essentially robbing their relative of the choice those funds would give in deciding how and where to spend their later years, and instead, leaving them to the care of already cash strapped local authorities, and whatever facilities they can provide free of charge. They are also asking the tax payer to foot the bill, as well as other self funding care home residents who are routinely charged more than LA funded residents, thereby subsidising them. I don’t understand anyone who thinks they are ‘entitled’ to an inheritance - it’s someone else’s property and if it needs to be used to fund care that the family are unable or unwilling to provide themselves, then that’s what it should be used for.

I do think the whole ‘for profit’ care system needs to be looked at, especially in light of the recent revelations about the owner of a string of homes who has taken almost £5m in earnings over the last few years. The homes are charging £1000 per week, have been found not to be providing adequate staffing levels for the safety of the residents, and funding obtained linked to the pandemic was never applied to the homes, but was taken as profit. On the face of it, it’s hard to see how one resident can cost £4000 a month when you consider how much CEO’s like this pay themselves and their shareholders, but that’s the nature of ‘for profit’. There needs to be a workable alternative to stop the elderly being gouged and stripped of their assets in this way, but how that would work, I for one have no idea, but I know it’s not a reason to do what the OP is proposing, egged on by quite a few contributors here. It’s morally indefensible.

On the face of it, it’s hard to see how one resident can cost £4000 a month

Absolutely standard. Reputable care homes in London and SE - start at 50k pa and can be as much as 100k.

No strictly true. The attorney has to act within the confines of the POA and any stated preferences or restrictions that the donor places on them as part of that. And in addition to acting in the best interests of the donor, and according to wishes set out by them in the POA, the attorney also has to show that they have actively involved the donor in any decision made on their behalf, depending on the donor’s capacity. Because someone has dementia it doesn’t mean that they will never have capacity - legally capacity is fluid and the person may be more or less cognisant at certain times, and therefore capable of input. And there is absolutely no situation where the attorney is empowered to give away any of the donors’ assets, in any situation.