Signing house over the children

[kookahhh]

Hello

I'm looking for advice to see what my mum would need to do to sign her house over to her two children, myself and my sister.

This is at her request. All of my gran's money went to pay for a care home and mum wants to avoid that.

I know it's a tricky subject, but I also know loads of people do this because I work for social services.

Mum is 76 and has had a hip replacement but has no current care needs or significant health problems that would suggest she'll need care at the moment.

I live nearby and plan to make sure she never needs to go into a home by helping out myself if needed, (sister as well but she lives a bit further away) but I know that sometimes even with the best will in the world that might not work out in some cases.

Thanks all.

You obviously know that if your Mum is deemed as having no assets at a point of time she needs care she will be placed in cheapest and nastiest care home council can find. Don't you think your Mum deserves better than that. With the best will in the world you say you would do your Mum's care needs but you have no bloody idea what that could entail. My Mum died of pancreatic cancer. She was only allowed to stay in her own home because Me and my 4 sisters took on all of her care needs. I gave up my teaching job to move back to my hometown to take turns caring for her with my sisters. One sister came back from living in Channel Islands to move back into her home and other sisters did half of every day each and we shared might shifts. If you think one person with a full time job and a little bit of help from your sister who lives away would manage alone you are deluded. Would you give up your job to look after your Mum like I did for 5 months? If your Mum is in her 70's she may not have too many years left. My Mum was very fit and well and taking care of herself cooking every day and doing her own cleaning, then once diagnosed went down hill very fast from diagnoses until death only about 7 months. If something like that happened to your Mum she would have 7 months of having to stay on an often unpleasant care home. Is that what you want for her?

My Auntie went into a care home. We viewed 7 before we found a home that we considered suitable for her. She had a private bedroom and a sitting room and a bathroom. She also used the communal lounge and was taken out every afternoon in the summer months to garden centres, seaside or trips to local markets or a pub cream tea. The meals were nice and you could order at beginning of week for whole week. There was also other entertainment in either afternoons or evenings. When my other Auntie (her sister) became frail she was allowed to join her sister and they put a bed on sitting room. My Auntie paid £1450 each week over 8 years ago but it was worth it. They employed more care staff than most homes and the extra care she received was really evident. She had clean clothes every day, someone helped her with her makeup and hair. Hairdressers came in weekly and a lady who did manicure and pedicure and my Auntie always looked smart and cared for. Very different from some care homes we viewed. If you think there is not much difference between homes you are mistaken. Some homes are lovely and set in beautiful landscaped grounds others are straight out on to main road. The point is once you are in a home and pay yourself, if your money goes down on to limit they leave you in nice home, they don't make you move to cheap one.

The morality of this aside, the fact is that such arrangements are fraught with very substantial risks.

People can be very naive in these situations thinking that family life will continue on its current trajectory.

Indeed, even that the people closest to them won't hurt them.

I'd never advocate that someone gift their home to their children to avoid IT.

The stakes are just far too high. Once the assets are transferred there's a million things to go wrong (divorce, business failing, siblings falling out etc etc).

Rather than thinking of avoiding IT I think it's better to consider retaining the house as investing in the best care for your parent through property.

OP, putting aside the inheritance thing, I’ve heard that this is very strongly recommended against being done as it is a very risky situation for your mother. Think of how vulnerable all the women who post here are when they don’t own the house they live in. It would be the same for your mother and she would struggle to find work to support herself if something went wrong. I know you might think you and your sister would never intentionally make her homeless but you never know what the future holds. People can also completely change when they think there is a chance of them getting a largish sum of money.

I can understand where you are coming from but not sure if the deprivation of assets is only applicable if you mum has care needs, moral and ethical issues aside. Nobody wants to see their house sold to pay for care, you clearly expect her to need care in the future, what about her housing cost until then. I presume you intend for her to continue living there in the interim. There is so much more to this than just transferring her assets otherwise everyone would do it. Also if she does need to go into a home, who pays if it’s the council you are depriving her of a choice of homes.
Liz My own mother was in a care home recently at a £1000 a week self funded, it is a really loverly place with excellent care facilities in contrast to the locally funded care homes whose care and facilities leave much to be desired. You say you and your sister say you will look after her, what happens if you can’t?

If someone self-funds...do they really have total choice over when they go into care and where placed?

Most people don't have spare cash up front for care home costs without selling their home and this takes time, while care needs may be urgent. I'm guessing social care do an assessment and put a charge on the house, paying the care fees until the house is sold?

In this situation, would they let a placement in a more expensive care home go ahead, knowing the self-funder's money would go down to £23,000 very quickly? Thus leaving social care to pay the bill sooner?

And, as a PP suggests, do social care really cough up the fees for an expensive home if the resident is already there when the £23,000 limit is reached?

Even when one spouses is in care home but other in the family house assets savings can still be taken. I would be very vary of signing over assets in the expectation of avoiding care fees. People talk about this as though it’s simple but it isn’t. My extended family members did something similar they signed part of the house over so it went into 3 equal shares (2 parents so both parents still owned the house along with their son) when both parents went into care due to their age health deteriation, the house was rented out to pay towards the care costs as they wanted a better standard of care for their parents. Once they died their son got the house but it still cost the family overall by his parents needing to go into a care home.

You can apply for a loan which is paid when property is sold providing social services agree that she needs to be in a care home.

@kookahhh

I did say it was a tricky one.

The seven year rule is capital gains and doesn't apply here. It's not an expensive house.

You can sign your house over when you don't have care needs already apparent.

So many people do this. I'm not looking for opinions in the rights and wrongs - I can tell you that around 50% of my service users who go into care already have the family home belonging to a family member.

I'm actually shocked that you work in ASC and think this is ok. It's not.

I also work in ASC and have rarely come across the scenario of children owning the house. Presumably because those who have considered it have been advised not to.

You can sign your house over when you don't have care needs already apparent.

Indeed you can but if/when care is needed later, the circumstances of the transfer can still be examined, and if determined to be deprivation of assets.

You rarely come across it, because solicitors (and maybe IFAs) would guve very clear warnings about how this will not have the desired effect (it will be treated as if the deprivation had never taken place)

@Doomsdayiscoming

Boomers gonna boom.

ODFO

@Sendingasurprise

And, as a PP suggests, do social care really cough up the fees for an expensive home if the resident is already there when the £23,000 limit is reached?

In my area they will do everything they can to keep someone in a care home if they are near the end of their life. Social care will try and negotiate at their rates with the care homes and if someone has been paying 1200 or something a week for years some care homes will accept £800 from social services knowing the person won't be there long. Other homes will not negotiate and as a last resort social care will pay so they don't move someone who is dying. This is only in my area, don't know about anywhere else.

@kookahhh

Our LA doesn't pursue people for deprivation if the care needs arise after the transfer. At least as things stand.

It's difficult to prove. I guess they'd have to find this thread and know it was me!

Well look you sound you like you have worked out how to fiddle the system and fuck over current tax payers some more so why not just crack on instead of posting on mumsnet. 🤷‍♀️

What about putting the house into a trust instead OP?A better way is to create a liferent trust, so the trust owns the property, and the parent has liferent of it. When the parent dies, the trust dissolves, and the property becomes part of the deceased’s estate.

Mixed feelings about this - a lot of older colleagues I've spoken to had self-funded people going into the same homes as state-funded ones. I wouldn't want to work all my life only to subdisize other people.
Knowing this I'll probably spend the majority of it while I'm still able... although when my time comes the state probably won't have any money left to pay for anything

If mum went into a care home she would get best value placement - as I work in the sector I know in our area there are no shit homes
She could live to be 100 and you will long have retired and know nothing of the sector any longer.

You and your sister might not have the health to.look after her or indeed, the funds to do any longer, needing it for yourself, or your husband.

My parents have also raised this issue. I said that I would never ever agree to it because I could never take the risk that they'd end up with poor standard of care as a result. Because I could pass away before then with all the assets going to my husband or whatever other reasons.

If you and your sister cared for you mum rather than insuring your inheritance, you'd tell her that it is not in her best interests.

Staring that many people do just that shows the level of selfishness and disregard for the best interests of elderly. Nothing to be proud of.

If you have a great salary then I don't see the need to trick the system to keep a not very expensive house (as you said). You still want the taxpayer to pay for your mum's care while you keep the house. Also, if you really plan to look after her, then there is no need to do any of this, as no care home would be needed