Protecting property if parents go into care

[Abwettar]

Hi, I'm wondering if anyone can give me some insight regarding protecting my parent's home from care home fees?

The current situation is that I am an only child, there is no other family. Aside from the house, there are no other assets. My parents have joint ownership of their house, worth around 100k, and are both currently living there. They are both in poor health, my dad has been diagnosed with terminal cancer and my mam has been diagnosed with dementia - however they both have capacity to understand the situation at the moment. They have always been adamant on me getting the house after they pass.

There are no plans for either of them to go into a care home, I would like for them to stay in the house as long as it's safe to do so, with care from myself and carers going in throughout the day.

I was looking into putting the home into a trust, but I have read some conflicting information on if this would be considered deprivation of assets due to their poor health.

My question is, if both my parents were to make a will and each leave their 50% share of the house to me, would this protect at least part of the house? For instance, if one of my parents passed away, would their half of the house be protected from care home fees, even in the situation that the other parent had to go into a care home?

Any advice on this situation would be greatly appreciated

Thank you

Investments make money.
Money made is taxed.

Investors money also supports loans such as mortgages, making money and supporting others.

We rely on investors

£1m before IHT is paid really??

Yet here we are arguing if a poster should be able to inherit a £100k or if it should be blown on care fees.

Money that would barely cover 3 years of care but money that could help the Op buy her own house.

We really seem to be in a cycle of keeping the working classes down. While the rich get richer.

If those working classes as you say get to keep inheritance that care fees would otherwise take up they can then perhaps pay off a mortgage,afford a deposit on a property or start a business as you say @Needspaceforlego

This allows that person to improve their life chances.
The next generation then benefits from that and inherits and doesn’t lose it in care fees and on and on it goes as generations become wealthier.

Taxes and unfair fees make this impossible.
It’s a mould this country has become locked in and, as yet, no Government seems capable of a long term plan which could be unpopular because they are all too obsessed with votes to keep them in power.

Waiting to see if Labour come up with a solution….and not one that stifles aspiration.

See a solicitor that specialises in this area. No point asking on here.

OP I can't help on how to avoid care home fees, but do understand your dilemma. It's unfair. To the person who said her relatives home had been taken by the nazis - bit of an extreme response don't you think? But that's Mumsnet for you.
OP, you have my sympathy. Take legal advice.

Not just to fund their own care though.

Its also used to fund THE CARE IN THE HOME OF OTHER RESIDENTS THE COUNCIL UNDERFUND

The main problem is that a) people used to (frankly) die quicker as medicine was less advanced and b) women used to do all this care for free. As a society we've never adjusted to those things changing.

We don't want to know the reality that old age is expensive and if women aren't doing the care for free, the money has to come from somewhere to pay someone to do it. Usually a woman on a low wage, obviously!

Why should the taxpayer pay for children when people are earning good money? Another thread this am talking about being 'punished' by tax because joint household income affected free childcare hours. One half of couple on £100k
So, either none or both

Dementia is a cruel illness. It's not about women caring for free. There comes a point when that person needs 24hr supervision. Just like a toddler. They loose continence. Their sleep patterns become disruptive. Some become violent in their confusion.

It just becomes far too much for a family to cope with.

My experience of councils is they won't pay for care unless they are forced too. I know a few people where they've had accidents broken bones, needed hospital care and that's been the point when hospitals Duty of Care steps in saying that person cannot be discharged to the same living conditions.

They need to pay. There is the "hotel" cost and the nursing care.

Other option you pay for their care to protect their house

@TheyAreNotAngelsTheyDontCareAtAll not quite the same!

This person wants to keep all her parents money but wants the rest of us to pay for her parents care

@AGovernmentOfLawsNotOfMen

If some can’t pay why should others have to?

Because that’s life. What’s your alternative, that the rest of the working population - many of whom have no hope of ever buying a house - picks up the tab so OP can keep her “inheritance”?

Why?

Well yes because that’s how the Welfare State works for everything.
We all pay into the system. We may not use every aspect of that system but it’s there to support those that need it as and when. That’s why it was set up, Cradle to Grave.
We need a new long term approach as the existing one clearly isn’t working. We only have to look at the effect on Local Councils and our Council Taxes to see that.
If you see a pp you’ll see potential cost per working age person to support the 300,000 in care. ( no calc for the 150,000 18-64yr olds though as there’s no Govn figures on costs for that across the UK ).

Im sure everyone has a different thought on this depending on their views of the welfare state and personal circumstances but personally I would like to see a change to the system to support growth and individuals aspirations.

Thats simply my thought. I’m happy to pay into a system that supports everyone that needs it.

Thats simply my thought. I’m happy to pay into a system that supports everyone that needs it
**
OP’s parents don’t need it atm. They have £100k in assets.

We are higher rate tax payers, have been for decades. Paid for private education and our first child was born with private care. No complaints here, we were lucky enough to be able to afford to. As you rightly say, it’s part of being a society. Those with broadest shoulders, etc.

We've planned for old age and will cover our costs. This may mean that we leave no “inheritance”. Our kids are good with that, they want us to be cared for should it come to it.

Why on earth should anyone else pay for us, or for anyone sitting on assets?

If at least one of your parents are living in the house it is disregarded in the financial assessment of their contribution to care costs. There is no placing of a charge against the property in this case. Dealt with my DF going into a care home while DM still lived in their home and I completed the financial assessment forms. The guidance stated very clearly the property was disregarded in their case.

I think the bit that gets me is super wealthy will pass assets on long before they hit care home age.

I know someone who's living in the house that Dad bought but work minimum hours and gets UC.

How is that fair?

We either support universal Cradle to Grave care or we don't. Which generally we seem to do with the exception of dementia.

Part of the issue for this couple is the Dad is likely to die before the Mum with dementia.

So again it's luck of the draw on who dies first, who gets what illnesses, who's able to pass assets on before they need a care home.

Maybe we should all move into rented, and blow our cash on a world cruise at the very first sign of dementia.
Might as well enjoy it, rather than have it used up on care home fees.

@Needspaceforlego yes the point I was making was that the LA can't make charges against a property that one of the spouses is still living in. It is totally disregarded from the contribution calculation in that case. Some posters were saying that the LA could set up a charge against the property if one spouse goes into a care home and the other was still living in the property, then they would claw it back from the estate of the second spouse. They have no claim against the property unless the second spouse then needs a care home.

I do agree with the world cruise!

That was their choice and it sounds like it’s been hard work. If they now own this property it gets sold to pay for any care they might need. That’s the rules. They chose the scrimp and live in “poverty”. How does their care now fall to the taxpayer?

I have no issue with paying more tax for better public services, understanding that we have an ageing population and there's nothing to be done about demographic reality.

What I DO object to is paying more tax to preserve the inheritances of other people. I work bloody hard and will never inherit any money, and am frequently now seeing my peers paying off mortgages with inheritances, going on expensive holidays etc. The gap between me and them widens, even while we earn similar amounts. I would truly resent paying extra tax just to ensure that people inherit more money. With the exception of vulnerable adults, the world would be a far better place if we were all just left to carve our own way in life and make our own success.

If I was ruler, ALL money left when someone died would be handed to the state. And if people spend before they die as a result, then great for our economy. We'd have far better public services too.

Money isn't taxed in the accounts I have it in.

I didn't dispute that we need investors. I disputed that savings and investments always draw tax.

What do you mean "really?!"? You can look it up.

I think it's too much. I think a couple of hundred k tax free, then tax the rest 50%.

I agree with you, such huge IHT allowances just keeps money for the wealthy. But tax on that is needed to fund society, and things like social care.

The role of a POA or Deputy is to act in the best financial interest of the donor. By changing ownership from JT to TIC the opposite happens - JT means the donor will get all the property on the death of the other JT, whereas TIC means they only get a % (usually 50%). The only people to benefit financially from such a position would be the people who would inherit on the death of the first TIC.

Yes I meant REALLY I honestly thought it was about £300k

And yet there are people who have openly said they have taken steps to avoid their kids lossing out to IHT, ie passing money on long before they hit old age.

I really think there should be some sort of corelation between the point where care home fees are self paid and the point where IHT is due.
It really shouldn't be a dementia tax if your unfortunate enough to get it.

It's £325k per person. For a married couple the £325k of the first to die (as in, the tax free band) passes to the survivor.

Then, if you own a house and leave it to direct offspring (or their spouses) then you have an extra tax free band each of £175k. So £500k each.

Joined together, for a married couple with property bequeathed to offspring, that's £1m. Tax. Free.

And after that the tax is 40%. On the amount OVER the tax free band (people rant about it as if dropping into the tax band means you suddenly pay tax on all of it, you don't).

Here: www.gov.uk/inheritance-tax