Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Property Ownership
My elderly parents jointly own their house outright. They have recently spoken to a solicitor and had the ownership altered so that my mum, dad,me and my sister each own 25%. They say the solicitor has told them that if either or both had to go into a care home at any time in the future mine and my sister's share could not be touched. Is this true as I thought that it had to be signed over for a number of years for it to be safe. Hope this doesn't sound like I want to put them in a home I really don't but they seem quite confused about what the solicitor has told them and just want to get the facts. TIA
Answers
1 to 6 of 6
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by knitnat. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It says the PRIMARY reason for transfer of assets must have been to avoid care fees. So if the reason was also for you and / or your sister to have a place to live that would be a valid reason for the transfer.
As I see it, if you and or your sister actually live in the house it can not be used for care fees.
The link given by bednobs is very new, only came into effect this month, so your solicitor may not be up to date on what he says.
As I see it, if you and or your sister actually live in the house it can not be used for care fees.
The link given by bednobs is very new, only came into effect this month, so your solicitor may not be up to date on what he says.
The word is SIGNIFICANT, which is not as specific as PRIMARY. However, it could be that there would be problems in the Local Authority claiming an interest if the children (or one of them) was living in the house.
I wonder what made the parents make this change. If they approached the solicitor because they wanted to do something to reduce possible care home fees that should be on the solicitor's records and could be used as evidence that they were deliberately trying to deprive themselves of the capital. It would then be much more difficult to avoid a decision to that effect.
The position of the daughter who is on benefits also needs to be considered. Look at para. 6.2 on page 14 of the linked factsheet. She could have benefit problems (she needs to let the DWP know the position, & the local authority if she gets housing benefit), although it may well be possible to argue that at present her interest in the house has no value as no-one would buy her quarter share and no court would grant an eviction order for the house to be sold. If she does have difficulty she should contact the CAB for advice - not the solicitor, who seems not to be very knowledgeable about these matters (he really should have raised it as a possible issue).
I suspect the solicitor may have badly advised your parents - I'm not at all sure anything has been gained by the change.
I wonder what made the parents make this change. If they approached the solicitor because they wanted to do something to reduce possible care home fees that should be on the solicitor's records and could be used as evidence that they were deliberately trying to deprive themselves of the capital. It would then be much more difficult to avoid a decision to that effect.
The position of the daughter who is on benefits also needs to be considered. Look at para. 6.2 on page 14 of the linked factsheet. She could have benefit problems (she needs to let the DWP know the position, & the local authority if she gets housing benefit), although it may well be possible to argue that at present her interest in the house has no value as no-one would buy her quarter share and no court would grant an eviction order for the house to be sold. If she does have difficulty she should contact the CAB for advice - not the solicitor, who seems not to be very knowledgeable about these matters (he really should have raised it as a possible issue).
I suspect the solicitor may have badly advised your parents - I'm not at all sure anything has been gained by the change.
1 to 6 of 6
