Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Councils Spy On Parents Who Sign Over House To Children: Blitz On Families Who 'avoid' Care Home Fees

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2466361/Councils-spy-parents-sign-house-children-Blitz-families-avoid-care-home-fees.html

Councils are spying on parents who sign over their homes to their children to avoid care home fees.

Local authority inspectors are rifling through residents’ financial records to see if they deliberately tried to conceal their property wealth.

If they uncover evidence that parents gave their home away as a ploy to escape care bills, they can use little-known powers to force the family to sell the property and pay up.

One council, Buckinghamshire, confirmed its inspectors were making such investigations.

Leading charity Age UK is so concerned at the number of families trying to avoid care fees it has published guidelines warning of the pitfalls in signing over property.

It warns that families may be embarking on a risky act, saying that budget-conscious councils are ‘likely to look at cases’ where they think ‘deprivation of assets may have taken place’.

Last night campaigners for the elderly said the ‘grey area’ of the law meant many families could be vulnerable to losing homes already signed over.

I was wondering about the implications of this.

What happens if they parents haven't signed over the house but put the kids on the part owners?

Still nice to know that councils will be treating people like criminals whilst criminals and bankers get to keep all they steal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see the look on some council officials faces when some old dear has to go into care leaving her £1 million home, only to find out she's unlocked the equity years earlier and spunked it all on holidays and cruises...... Because that's what I would be doing. laugh.gif

I'm cutting out the middle man anyway by not buying a flat/house in the first place. dry.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1382188242[/url]' post='909414137']

I have a funny feeling that when us 20-30s are old, the only thing we will get from the state is the finger.

You may very well be right, but that's a gamble I'm willing to take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a funny feeling that when us 20-30s are old, the only thing we will get from the state is the finger.

The boomers will start usuing you for fuel when you are in your 40s and toss you onto the fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2466361/Councils-spy-parents-sign-house-children-Blitz-families-avoid-care-home-fees.html

I was wondering about the implications of this.

What happens if they parents haven't signed over the house but put the kids on the part owners?

Still nice to know that councils will be treating people like criminals whilst criminals and bankers get to keep all they steal.

I think it's fantastic news I'm really pleased councils are sharpening up on this, every forced sale is a good day for HPC as far as I'm concerned. I want to buy a house as a home to live in at a reasonable price I'm not looking at it as a cash machine or something to pass on. it's the greed rearing its ugly head again here, good on local councils I hope they have continued successes in this sphere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fantastic news I'm really pleased councils are sharpening up on this, every forced sale is a good day for HPC as far as I'm concerned. I want to buy a house as a home to live in at a reasonable price I'm not looking at it as a cash machine or something to pass on. it's the greed rearing its ugly head again here, good on local councils I hope they have continued successes in this sphere.

Completely agree. I, and I'm sure others here also, do not want their council taxes being used to subsidise the inheritance of boomer spawn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Councils have always means tested old folk anyway but houses having been signed over like this has been going on for ages. There used to be a time limit if said house was signed over preceding something like three years of going into care then it was deemed to be evasion of paying care home costs and the house should be sold . I don`t think the councils have the staff to police all this though, and doubt if ever will. Just like HMRC...they cannot keep on top of things so how the hell will a council with all the cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's fantastic news I'm really pleased councils are sharpening up on this, every forced sale is a good day for HPC as far as I'm concerned. I want to buy a house as a home to live in at a reasonable price I'm not looking at it as a cash machine or something to pass on. it's the greed rearing its ugly head again here, good on local councils I hope they have continued successes in this sphere.

Not only that, but those house owners whinging about how unfair it is to be forced "unlock their equity" to pay for care , no matter what, forget that most of the equity in their house, if they haven't already splurged it , was extracted from the prudent savers via govt bailouts , govt incentives, govt subsidizations and central bank QE. The largest transfer of wealth ever seen from the prudent to the feckless, and now the house owners cry they have to pay for care ?! They are lucky, the savers have nothing left from which to pay for anything.

I have no sympathy for the biggest welfare recipients in the modern economy, the banksters and the house owners.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...buy a home by amalgamating resources together, granny in the granny annex looking after grandchild/children...later grandchild now in grannies annex because granny no longer has a need for it...then grandchild in the main house and parents can then stay in the granny annex looking after a new grandchild, can only afford one child now, not fair on granny to look after more, both too busy working anyway.....a complete new living cycle. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Councils have always means tested old folk anyway but houses having been signed over like this has been going on for ages. There used to be a time limit if said house was signed over preceding something like three years of going into care then it was deemed to be evasion of paying care home costs and the house should be sold . I don`t think the councils have the staff to police all this though, and doubt if ever will. Just like HMRC...they cannot keep on top of things so how the hell will a council with all the cuts.

With some councils now it is 7 years. I have heard 9 years mentioned also.

Certain authorities are very clued up on things now because it is such an important part of their funding. They have such high elderly care costs that they are very keen on getting their hands on property.

Having said that, I heard a story this week about a couple in their 70s who sold their 300K house, moved into renting and then applied for a social housing flat. They got it. So nice housing association flat in a very nice area of Swansea and 300K in the bank plus their pensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only that, but those house owners whinging about how unfair it is to be forced "unlock their equity" to pay for care , no matter what, forget that most of the equity in their house, if they haven't already splurged it , was extracted from the prudent savers via govt bailouts , govt incentives, govt subsidizations and central bank QE. The largest transfer of wealth ever seen from the prudent to the feckless, and now the house owners cry they have to pay for care ?! They are lucky, the savers have nothing left from which to pay for anything.

I have no sympathy for the biggest welfare recipients in the modern economy, the banksters and the house owners.

You're attacking the wrong people.

Most of the people who are having their assets confiscated at a rate of 100% are in their 80s and 90s and are probably THE most prudent savers. Most are living off negative real interest on their savings, beyond the age where they have the possibility of work.

So what you're arguing is for 100% tax rates for people who have saved hard, paid down their mortgage, accumulated modest savings to get them through their last few years and for those savings to be confiscated by the state and handed over to residential home landlords.

Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

In terms of the impact on house prices it'll be negligible if any 'cause the care home landlords and councils have a VI in ensuring the highest sale price. So it's not a 'forced sale'. It's communist style asset confiscation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real victims are the elderly forced to live in the cheapest and nastiest care homes for the last years of their lives because they signed their home over to their kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're attacking the wrong people.

Most of the people who are having their assets confiscated at a rate of 100% are in their 80s and 90s and are probably THE most prudent savers. Most are living off negative real interest on their savings, beyond the age where they have the possibility of work.

They are the savers. The homeowners who long ago paid for their homes without govt subsidies. I am not attacking the savers. I am attacking the mortgage debtors who are using govt handouts confiscated from the savers to subsidize their mortgages. However, how far back to you have to go to find a homeowner who paid back their morgage without govt or central bank subsidy, maybe decades or more ? The equity that they are accruing in their houses is at the cost of the savers, and as such these house owners have no right to quibble over payback for their elderly care.. IMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real victims are the elderly forced to live in the cheapest and nastiest care homes for the last years of their lives because they signed their home over to their kids.

A solicitor friend of mine told me that his firm now refuses to do this because they have seen so many parents kicked out of their own home by their 'loving' children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...buy a home by amalgamating resources together, granny in the granny annex looking after grandchild/children...later grandchild now in grannies annex because granny no longer has a need for it...then grandchild in the main house and parents can then stay in the granny annex looking after a new grandchild, can only afford one child now, not fair on granny to look after more, both too busy working anyway.....a complete new living cycle. ;)

Way it was done, once. A lady friend of mine has similar ideas. It's called a "commune". She thinks a few of us should sell up, buy somewhere large, and pool our resources. Well, now you won't need a fridge each, and not so many cars between you, and cooking for ten is not much more difficult than cooking for one. And you won't have to do the cooking every day. You would only need one broadband connection and TV license. But no! The "way" is for each individual to live in an expensive tiny box, on their own, and own one of everything, and have no friends! Obviously you will all have to get on, reasonably well! :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way it was done, once. A lady friend of mine has similar ideas. It's called a "commune". She thinks a few of us should sell up, buy somewhere large, and pool our resources. Well, now you won't need a fridge each, and not so many cars between you, and cooking for ten is not much more difficult than cooking for one. And you won't have to do the cooking every day. You would only need one broadband connection and TV license. But no! The "way" is for each individual to live in an expensive tiny box, on their own, and own one of everything, and have no friends! Obviously you will all have to get on, reasonably well! :blink:

It only works when people are forced too, as in the Philippines etc etc etc.. Then it`s smiles all round..they become rich in spirit and poor in lcd tvs and I pods

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Way it was done, once. A lady friend of mine has similar ideas. It's called a "commune". She thinks a few of us should sell up, buy somewhere large, and pool our resources. Well, now you won't need a fridge each, and not so many cars between you, and cooking for ten is not much more difficult than cooking for one. And you won't have to do the cooking every day. You would only need one broadband connection and TV license. But no! The "way" is for each individual to live in an expensive tiny box, on their own, and own one of everything, and have no friends! Obviously you will all have to get on, reasonably well! :blink:

You are Jeremy 'Berkshire' Hunt and I claim my £5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does any council ever make public the figures of how many individuals they have caught out on 'deprivation of assets'?

Thought not...

Zero all round, I imagine.

Edited by juvenal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're attacking the wrong people.

Most of the people who are having their assets confiscated at a rate of 100% are in their 80s and 90s and are probably THE most prudent savers. Most are living off negative real interest on their savings, beyond the age where they have the possibility of work.

So what you're arguing is for 100% tax rates for people who have saved hard, paid down their mortgage, accumulated modest savings to get them through their last few years and for those savings to be confiscated by the state and handed over to residential home landlords.

Doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

In terms of the impact on house prices it'll be negligible if any 'cause the care home landlords and councils have a VI in ensuring the highest sale price. So it's not a 'forced sale'. It's communist style asset confiscation.

Maybe so but it's sending out the message that ownership is not the be all & end all and that it will be confiscated easily in the end. So It might bring on a step change in the desire to own which could ultimately lead to lower prices. Someone mentioned on another thread that for today's young ownership is already seen as unfashionable.

Yes boomer bashing etc might be attacking the wrong people and there's the bigger picture of the rentier class & the state. But for now the shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line, confiscation / forced sales any way

to put the squeeze on all helps towards the HPC target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When and if housing returns to a reasonable value, it will be moot anyway. Why is everyone getting worked up about a scenario that assumes housing remains expensive forever? Removing the inheritance of expensive housing is just removing another prop, and I'd rather see housing affordable by everyone, not just the lucky few who inherit from parents who didn't require a nursing home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to mention not allowing the relaxing the Euthanasia rules allowing such families to keep their funds 'inhouse'.

All about enriching the landowning care home providers, who on the scale of shitty people are one below banksters and one up from large portfolio BTL operators.

I think the thing which sticks in most people's throats is some can save and pay their own way all their lives and have it taken away like this in their twilight whilst those who do not and rely on the state for shelter ect are offered the same service at nil cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternative version of the headline could be

'council tries to save tax payer from being ripped off'

or

'council increases local employment'

or

'council spies on people and increases it's own pension burden for future tax payers'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It only works when people are forced too, as in the Philippines etc etc etc.. Then it`s smiles all round..they become rich in spirit and poor in lcd tvs and I pods

It does indeed work well there, I do believe however that it is causing people to have many children as the children's wages ARE their pension.

this of course leads to having a rapidly growing population and University graduates working as shop assistants, if they are lucky!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does any council ever make public the figures of how many individuals they have caught out on 'deprivation of assets'?

Thought not...

Zero all round, I imagine.

A member of my partners family has just sold her house and given her kids the money, before moving into rented oap accommodation

I am told by my partner (who is an accountant) that the law on this is a gray area, As at the moment she can pay the rent on the flat from her pension. The council would thus have to prove that this was done to avoid paying care fees, In other words, the kids new she was going to deteriorate to the point at which her care fees would exceed her pension

As you can imaging this is essentially impossible to prove.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   218 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.