A question about Scottish inheritance law

[Shuvi McTupya]

Anyone know about this stuff?

My mother wants to sign her house over to my sister and I so that the government can't take it if she needs to go into care in later life.

A solicitor we have spoken to is suggesting that even if she signs it over, the local authorities can still treat it as her asset and use it to fund her care. Failing that, they can decide that her care will be limited if she doesn't have the money to cover it.

I was under the impression that her life long national insurance contributions would cover her healthcare requirements if she had no assets.

Can anyone clarify this? There must be a way to protect my inheritance! The house is the only asset and is worth just under £300k.

[leigh1050]

You'd probably be better off asking this question in the speed plod and law forum.

[Orchid1]

I thought they could still seize it as an asset if she passed away with in seven years of it being signed over or something. I don't mean to start a political argument or sound ignorant but with the SNP in charge i'd be careful and seek proper advice as they (the SNP) don't like people having any kind of wealth it seems.

[Shuvi McTupya]

Orchid1 said:

I thought they could still seize it as an asset if she passed away with in seven years of it being signed over or something. I don't mean to start a political argument or sound ignorant but with the SNP in charge i'd be careful and seek proper advice as they (the SNP) don't like people having any kind of wealth it seems.

I understood there was a seven year period that mattered too, but the solicitor is suggesting that is now not true and the local authority can go back as far as they want..not sure what happens if my mum leaves me the house and I sell it seven years later..would I then have to pay for her care out of my pocket...

The house is also my main residence so they can't kick me out, but they can still take the value out of it so they get it all if I ever wanted to sell it.

[Mr-B]

Transferring the house into (adult) children's names is never good advice, for one it may not prevent the house being counted as part of the assets of the person needing care. Secondly should anyone of the children go through a divorce, become bankrupt or die then the home will become part of those related proceedings which will put the parent at a significant risk of losing their home. A lifetime trust may be a safer but quite expensive option (and is still not guaranteed to work depending on the circumstances of the individual) but get specialist advice on this whole area of care fees planning before doing anything.

[Shuvi McTupya]

Thanks Mr-B,

We will definitely be getting more professional advice, just trying to get some input or suggestions so I know which questions to ask

[TooMany2cvs]

There is a very major and relevant difference between having no assets and having had assets you've given away with the specific intent of not having to contribute to your care.

The technical term is "deprivation if assets". Have a Google. Council tax payers really should not be subsidising your inheritance.

Seven years is the sliding scale for gifts for IHT.

Edited by TooMany2cvs on Tuesday 24th November 22:45

[Twin1]

Not 100% on this but I'm sure that if it looks like 'deliberate' deprivation of assets, the local authority are able to use past assets as part of their calculation of how much capital the person needing care has, and they can seek the cost of care from the person the assets were transferred to within 6 months of the person needing care requesting local authority funding.

To do this, the local authority has to prove that the deprivation of assets was deliberate and, whatever action was taken (in this case it'd be transferring the house) was done with avoiding care charges as at least a 'significant' reason.

As has been said above, it's dangerous to transfer property as your mum would lose control over it and your sister doesn't have full control e.g. divorce, and as always, proper legal advice should've been sought.

Lots of information here if it helps: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...

[Shuvi McTupya]

Wow..I gave taken a look at that document and it seems we will be losing the house no matter what we do..

I am amazed at how comprehensive their ability to screw you over is, and even though it is my home it seems as though I can be booted out as I am not over 60, under 16, or incapacitated.

If she even pays off debts or has an expensive holiday before going into care, they can take the attitude she only did that to deprive the government of her money!!

Now I see why property ownership is encouraged..

[anonymous-user]

Shuvi McTupya said:

Wow..I gave taken a look at that document and it seems we will be losing the house no matter what we do..

I am amazed at how comprehensive their ability to screw you over is, and even though it is my home it seems as though I can be booted out as I am not over 60, under 16, or incapacitated.

If she even pays off debts or has an expensive holiday before going into care, they can take the attitude she only did that to deprive the government of her money!!

Now I see why property ownership is encouraged..

It's not your home, it's your mother's.

If you're so concerned make sure your mother never needs care, or only needs it for a very short period, by looking after her yourself.

At least the current government is making IHT less onerous, though that has little to do with your 'problem' in any case.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Shuvi McTupya said:

There must be a way to protect my inheritance!

There is, look after her yourself.

If my kids want to look after me then they can have my house. If they don't ( and I fully understand that they have their own lives to live) then I will spend my own money and sell my own house to make my final days as luxurious as possible.

If there's anything left after I've done that, they can have the scraps.

I've never seen what the issue is. Cake and eat it springs to mind.

[TooMany2cvs]

Shuvi McTupya said:

I am amazed at how comprehensive their ability to screw you over is

Yeh, why SHOULD your mother pay for her own care from her assets, anyway?

Shuvi McTupya said:

and even though it is my home it seems as though I can be booted out as I am not over 60, under 16, or incapacitated.

So there's no real reason why you shouldn't be looking after your own accommodation and wellbeing, rather than be subsidised by a combination of your elderly mother and the council tax payer?

[TooMany2cvs]

REALIST123 said:

It's not your home, it's your mother's.

It's home to both of them. But it's her house.

[OldGermanHeaps]

Another benefit thief tarnishing the reputation of scotland. How original. Well done.

[Aretnap]

Threads like this make me rather sad. I just hope that when I get old my own children are more interested in my happiness and wellbeing than they are in making sure they get their hands on my money, before I'm even in the ground.

Re national insurance - it's just a tax, albeit one which is linked to eligibility for certain state benefits. It has nothing to do with paying for your own personal health or social care costs.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I've never understood why the tax payer should pay for the care of elderly people with expensive assets just so their children in their 30s, 40s and 50s can inherit hundreds of thousands of pounds they haven't earned and don't deserve.

And I speak as a parent with my own home.

[Durzel]

This thread has got to be a windup, but it's a depressing sign of the times that it's perfectly believable.

Children seeing their parents as large investments waiting to mature, looking for taxpayers to subsidise their inheritance, etc. Just.. ugh.

[Shuvi McTupya]

I expected responses like this

I wasn't expecting to be labelled as a benefit thief though..

Neither my mother or I have spent any time claiming benefits, she has always been employed and I have always been employed or self employed. We are both contributors and tax payers!

Didn't think there was anything wrong with trying to keep stuff we have bought, if she had lived in a council house all her life and spunked her money on booze and holidays this would not even be an issue..

I agree about looking after her myself, and I will do that for as long as I can. She would rather take a one way holiday to a Swiss clinic than go into care , but she is not allowed to do that either. I can only think of one reason why that would be against the rules and it is not for her benefit.

[Durzel]

Turning this on its head - who do you think should have to pay for your Mum's health care, bearing in mind her taxes/NI contributions would've paid for services, pension, etc?

[Shuvi McTupya]

Durzel said:

Turning this on its head - who do you think should have to pay for your Mum's health care, bearing in mind her taxes/NI contributions would've paid for services, pension, etc?

The NHS ..isn't that the point of it? Isn't that what she has paid for all her life? She has a private pension, but that won't cover private care.

Her parents healthcare was covered as they never owned any assets the government could take.

I guess I just need to accept I won't be keeping the family home unless I can afford to pay for her care home if she has to go into one. A new house would be cheaper