As you might know, I posted earlier in the year regarding the passing 
away of my mother in February and that my step-father is temporarily in 
a home awaiting a permanent residence there (I think)?

The local Social Services are looking into his finances regarding his 
care costs.  He does receive Pension Credit which I successfully got for 
him, as he doesn't have a large amount of savings.

One of the questions Social Services required was whether he had owned 
any property in the last two years, to which I answered no.  My mother 
left the house to the three children with a proviso that he can live in 
the property until he dies.

Quite naturally, Social Services requires proof of ownership, as they 
would like to stake their claim in order to finance his care.  I have 
provided them with proof in the form of a solicitors letter and a Land 
Registry document.  The house has been registered in my mother's name 
since at least May, 2001.  I don't think the house has ever been in my 
step-fathers name.  (She was probably advised to to this by her 
solicitor in order to keep the property in the family).

I have been informed that provided a property is signed over to a 
partner/spouse at least seven years before their death, then it remains 
with the beneficiaries.  Is this correct?

My sister's solicitor and the company handling the estate have informed 
me that the property should remain with the family.

It gets complicated from a lay persons point of view, as regards 
'Beneficial Rights', 'Tenants in Common', but in theory that shouldn't 
matter, as the property has been with a 'new' owner for at least seven 
years?

It's a bit of a minefield unless one lives in Scotland.  Care costs for 
the elderly might change with a new Tory government (if you can trust 
them), but we'll lose our bus passes etc.

Has anybody else had similar experiences or can they elucidate on this 
matter?

In message , Saxman 
 writes

>
>Quite naturally, Social Services requires proof of ownership, as they 
>would like to stake their claim in order to finance his care.

Tell them in no uncertain terms to bugger off. They don't have any claim 
on the house even if he did own it.




-- 
Bernard Peek

there has been a lot of this whereby people have been handing over the
property to the children to avoid having to sell up to pay for care [I think
it should either be free for all, or pay for all, not as it is, the idle and
lazy sods that never work get it free and those that work and save get
charged]
the test of ownership -for the council- is;was the property merely signed
over for that purpose, do the occupiers [the parents/previous owners pay
rent or is it rent free?]
to avoid that, my Daughter is paying tax on the rent that she does not get
from me since we signed it over to her and our son jointly when we bought
it.   all is legal and above board but you have to be one step ahead of the
councils

a further thought.  the seven years comes in with gifts to a beneficiary.
if you give a gift of whatever sort, money or in kind, and you die within 7
years then tax is due on it,  beyond 7, then not.
we had a big one here a while ago.  the local newspaper owner [worth A LOT
of money] so as to avoid death duties etc passed all he had to his son.
quite legit.   but the son died in an accident about 5 years later, and then
of course the taxes kicked in, really laid him low

gruffydd wrote:
> there has been a lot of this whereby people have been handing over the
> property to the children to avoid having to sell up to pay for care [I think
> it should either be free for all, or pay for all, not as it is, the idle and
> lazy sods that never work get it free and those that work and save get
> charged]

My mother didn't sign the property over to her children in 2001.  She 
just registered the house in her name at the time.

She left her estate to her children via her will, dated 13/08/2004. 
Nothing to do with tax avoidance.

On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:12:34 +0000, Saxman wrote:

> As you might know, I posted earlier in the year regarding the passing
> away of my mother in February and that my step-father is temporarily in
> a home awaiting a permanent residence there (I think)?
> 
> The local Social Services are looking into his finances regarding his
> care costs.  He does receive Pension Credit which I successfully got for
> him, as he doesn't have a large amount of savings.
> 
> One of the questions Social Services required was whether he had owned
> any property in the last two years, to which I answered no.  My mother
> left the house to the three children with a proviso that he can live in
> the property until he dies.
> 
> Quite naturally, Social Services requires proof of ownership, as they
> would like to stake their claim in order to finance his care.  I have
> provided them with proof in the form of a solicitors letter and a Land
> Registry document.  The house has been registered in my mother's name
> since at least May, 2001.  I don't think the house has ever been in my
> step-fathers name.  (She was probably advised to to this by her
> solicitor in order to keep the property in the family).
> 
> I have been informed that provided a property is signed over to a
> partner/spouse at least seven years before their death, then it remains
> with the beneficiaries.  Is this correct?

It doesn't seem relevant to this case.

> 
> My sister's solicitor and the company handling the estate have informed
> me that the property should remain with the family.
> 
> It gets complicated from a lay persons point of view, as regards
> 'Beneficial Rights', 'Tenants in Common', but in theory that shouldn't
> matter, as the property has been with a 'new' owner for at least seven
> years?

If what you wrote above is correct, your step-father was neither a 
"Tenant in Common" nor "Joint Tenant" (both of which are forms of joint 
ownership, confusingly). Presumably he does have a Beneficial Right - to 
live in the house for his lifetime.  AIUI, the seven year rule refers to 
inheritance tax, not paying for residential care.


> It's a bit of a minefield unless one lives in Scotland.  Care costs for
> the elderly might change with a new Tory government (if you can trust
> them), but we'll lose our bus passes etc.
> 
> Has anybody else had similar experiences or can they elucidate on this
> matter?

uk.legal.moderated may be a better place to ask, though I understand why 
you ask in here first.

-- 
Ali

Ali on netbook wrote:

> uk.legal.moderated may be a better place to ask, though I understand why 
> you ask in here first.

I will post there, thanks.  At least I understand the inheritance 
dimension now.

Ali on netbook wrote:

snips all over

 AIUI, the seven year
> rule refers to inheritance tax, not paying for residential care.

Are you sure about that? :)
-- 
Buy a poppy....help a serviceman
Pete C
London UK

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:49:55 +0000, Pete C wrote:

> Ali on netbook wrote:
> 
> snips all over
> 
>  AIUI, the seven year
>> rule refers to inheritance tax, not paying for residential care.
> 
> Are you sure about that? :)

I'm not sure about anything, but according to 
<http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/Documents/
FS40Deprivation_of_assets_in_the_means_test_for_care_home_provision.pdf> 
there is no specific time limit in deprivation of capital cases. 

-- 
Ali

Bernard Peek burst on the scene, and said:

> Tell them in no uncertain terms to bugger off. They don't have any 
> claim on the house even if he did own it.

Not helpful, Bernard. They don't have a 'claim' on a persons house but 
in many situations they have a legal duty to take account of its value 
in determining liability for, and the amount of, residential care 
charges.

-- 
Michaelangelo
Self-catering, holiday accommodation in the Scottish Highlands, for 
disabled people
www.woodhead-cottage.co.uk

Ali on netbook wrote:

> I'm not sure about anything, but according to 
> <http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/Documents/
> FS40Deprivation_of_assets_in_the_means_test_for_care_home_provision.pdf> 
> there is no specific time limit in deprivation of capital cases. 

Directory listing denied?

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:05:23 +0000, Saxman wrote:

> Directory listing denied?

Try
http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/Documents/FS40Deprivation_of_assets_in_the_means_test_for_care_home_provision.pdf

HTH

-- 
John the R-T
Do NOT reply to the heypete address.  Reply to is valid
http://www.john-the-r-t.co.uk/ Cruise and Family site.
http://john-the-r-t.110mb.com/ - Annexe.

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:40:26 +0000, John the R-T wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:05:23 +0000, Saxman wrote:
> 
>> Directory listing denied?
> 
> Try
> http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/Documents/FS40Deprivation_of_assets_in_the_means_test_for_care_home_provision.pdf
> 
> HTH

I read all of that and found it very very interesting.
-- 
Many would be wise if they did not think themselves wise.
~Baltasar Gracian
http://ariesval.co.uk/val/

On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:38:30 +0000, AriesVal wrote:

> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 08:40:26 +0000, John the R-T wrote:
> 
>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:05:23 +0000, Saxman wrote:
>> 
>>> Directory listing denied?
>> 
>> Try
>> http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/Documents/FS40Deprivation_of_assets_in_the_means_test_for_care_home_provision.pdf
>> 
>> HTH
> 
> I read all of that and found it very very interesting.

I wonder what the so called Deprivation would be in both these cases?

Joint Tenancy and Tenancy in Common

Legally there are two types of joint ownership, joint equity or property
co-buying. You can either own the property as ¡joint tenants' or as ¡tenants
in common'. Do not be put off by the terminology. It has nothing to do with
tenancies and applies to freehold or leasehold land.

Joint tenancy

Under this agreement the joint owners together own the whole property and do
not have a particular share in it. If one of the owners dies the other
automatically becomes the sole owner. This would be the case even if a will
had been made leaving the deceased owner's ¡share' to someone other than the
co-owner.

Tenancy in common

This is the opposite of joint tenancy in that the tenants in common each
have a definite share in the property. For example A and B could own the
property in equal shares, or A could own one fifth with B owning four
fifths. This would be the most appropriate agreement where people want to
own a property in separate pre-determined shares.

Under this form of ownership if one of the owners dies, his share of the
property will pass on to whoever he specifies in a will, or if a will is not
made, in accordance with the rules of intestacy (someone dying without
leaving a will). If you are planning to make a will (and it would be wise to
do so) you should have it drawn up before you sign the transfer deed that
passes the legal ownership of the property to you. This way you will save
the time, money and inconvenience of having to change your will. 
-- 
No matter what side of the argument you are on,
you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other.
~Jascha Heifetz
http://ariesval.co.uk/val/

In message , Michaelangelo 
<mikenagel@lineone.net.invalid> writes
>Bernard Peek burst on the scene, and said:
>
>> Tell them in no uncertain terms to bugger off. They don't have any 
>>claim on the house even if he did own it.
>
>Not helpful, Bernard. They don't have a 'claim' on a persons house but 
>in many situations they have a legal duty to take account of its value 
>in determining liability for, and the amount of, residential care 
>charges.

My understanding is that many local councils have tried to claim that 
they have they have authority to do that, but central government have 
said that this is not so. The council is entitled to take the value of 
other properties the person may own into account but not their principal 
residence.


-- 
Bernard Peek

John the R-T wrote:
>
> Try
> http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/Documents/FS40Deprivation_of_assets_in_the_means_test_for_care_home_provision.pdf

Thanks, I got it now!

I consulted my occupational pensions legal advisor.

He thinks that as long as my mother made adequate provision for her 
husband, there's not a lot anybody can claim.

She made provision for him to stay in his home (albeit in my mother's 
name) stipulating that the property bills must be paid and the property 
maintained for his convenience.

The fact that my step-father is beyond caring for himself is not really 
her problem.

It's not as though she ejected him and that he needs somewhere to live?

John the R-T wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:05:23 +0000, Saxman wrote:
>
>> Directory listing denied?
>
> Try
> http://www.ageconcern.org.uk/AgeConcern/Documents/FS40Deprivation_of_assets_in_the_means_test_for_care_home_provision.pdf
>
> HTH

Thanks :)
-- 
Buy a poppy....help a serviceman
Pete C
London UK

Bernard Peek burst on the scene, and said:
> In message , Michaelangelo 
> <mikenagel@lineone.net.invalid> writes
>>Bernard Peek burst on the scene, and said:
>>
>>> Tell them in no uncertain terms to bugger off. They don't have any 
>>> claim on the house even if he did own it.
>>
>>Not helpful, Bernard. They don't have a 'claim' on a persons house 
>> but in many situations they have a legal duty to take account of 
>> its value in determining liability for, and the amount of, 
>> residential care charges.
>
> My understanding is that many local councils have tried to claim that 
> they have they have authority to do that, but central government have 
> said that this is not so. The council is entitled to take the value 
> of other properties the person may own into account but not their 
> principal residence.

There are exceptions but they are quite specific. This from the 
Governments website:


"What happens if you're a home owner?

If you own your home, it may be counted as capital 12 weeks after you 
move into a care home on a permanent basis. However, your home won't be 
counted as capital if any of the following people still live there:
your husband, wife, civil partner or de facto partner
a close relative who is 60 or over, or incapacitated
a close relative under the age of 16 who you're legally liable to 
support
your ex-husband, ex-wife, ex-civil partner or ex-partner if they are a 
lone parent

Your local council may choose not to count your home as capital if your 
carer lives there but it is not obliged to do so."


The pertinent point is that one or more of the persons mentioned above 
must live in the house. Otherwise, if the person who has gone into care 
owns the preoperty then its value must be taken into account in 
determining care charges.

-- 
Michaelangelo
Self-catering, holiday accommodation in the Scottish Highlands, for 
disabled people
www.woodhead-cottage.co.uk

Michaelangelo burst on the scene, and said:

> There are exceptions but they are quite specific. This from the 
> Governments website:

<Snip>

Sorry, forgot the link:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/HealthAndWellBeing/HealthServices/CareHomes/DG_10031525

-- 
Michaelangelo
Self-catering, holiday accommodation in the Scottish Highlands, for 
disabled people
www.woodhead-cottage.co.uk

Michaelangelo wrote:

> The pertinent point is that one or more of the persons mentioned above 
> must live in the house. Otherwise, if the person who has gone into care 
> owns the preoperty then its value must be taken into account in 
> determining care charges.
> 
I realise the above, but as I stated in my first post, my stepfather 
does not own the house.  It was transferred to my mother in 2001.

In message , Michaelangelo 
<mikenagel@lineone.net.invalid> writes


>The pertinent point is that one or more of the persons mentioned above 
>must live in the house. Otherwise, if the person who has gone into care 
>owns the preoperty then its value must be taken into account in 
>determining care charges.
>
Thanks I stand, or perhaps slouch, corrected.



-- 
Bernard Peek