So it's National Insurance then

[Vindec]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

RSCD was suggesting a way round not losing a property to pay for care. Yes, it's logical (and easy to sort out) if a surviving spouse owns 100% of the property. If one partner dies, according to the terms of their will, children could inherit 50% in equal shares. Then it gets complicated. Even before the death of the surviving spouse, child A might want to sell, child B and C might want to live there. Exacerbated further if surviving spouse dies and only 2/3 children are executors of the will which may or may not entitle 3 (for example) children to the remaining 50%. 2 of the offspring can then decide the fate of the house. Depends on how the will is written. Houses have been known to be left empty (and who pays for maintenance?) whilst children wrangle over what to do with it. Family politics. One reason dad's house was sold. Keep it simple. No room for argument.
As for care costs. If the remaining spouse goes into care with children owning 50% of the property, I think, the property is protected but could be subject to deferred payment to pay for their care until the remaining spouses' assets decline to the minimum allowed. Easier to sell up IF part owners agree. RSCD ....is this correct?

That sounds to me that leaving 50% of a house to anyone but a surviving spouse can cause multiple problems. However, Ian Dale was suggesting that a will should NOT specify that spouses should leave their 50% share of a property to their surviving spouse. It seems whatever you do the local authority will get their money from the property either through paying fees as they accumulate or by deferred payment. As far as I can tell the new arrangements won't change this.

[Re-sign Carl Dale]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

RSCD was suggesting a way round not losing a property to pay for care. Yes, it's logical (and easy to sort out) if a surviving spouse owns 100% of the property. If one partner dies, according to the terms of their will, children could inherit 50% in equal shares. Then it gets complicated. Even before the death of the surviving spouse, child A might want to sell, child B and C might want to live there. Exacerbated further if surviving spouse dies and only 2/3 children are executors of the will which may or may not entitle 3 (for example) children to the remaining 50%. 2 of the offspring can then decide the fate of the house. Depends on how the will is written. Houses have been known to be left empty (and who pays for maintenance?) whilst children wrangle over what to do with it. Family politics. One reason dad's house was sold. Keep it simple. No room for argument.
As for care costs. If the remaining spouse goes into care with children owning 50% of the property, I think, the property is protected but could be subject to deferred payment to pay for their care until the remaining spouses' assets decline to the minimum allowed. Easier to sell up IF part owners agree. RSCD ....is this correct?

Yes - the last part is correct, in that the property is protected, although potentially a charge from the LA could be put against the surviving spouses' 50%

You are also right about it being a nightmare (plus other tax complications) for a house to be owned 50% by widow and the rest amongst the children. Aside from any issues about wanting to sell, if someone gets divorced, what was mum & dad's home would be part of the settlement!!!

More common would be to use a Trust - that's what we do for our clients. Simply put, when one partner dies, their half of the house goes in Trust for the children, however the condition is that the surviving spouse lives there (rent free) for the rest of their life. The children don't have any control / access until both parents die. This solves any tax issues, and it's not part of the estate of the children in the event of family breakups, bankruptcy etc.

[Feedback]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Thanks for clarifying the first point and yes to the last point. But....family politics and parental inertia/illness meant that a 2015 will applied when mum died and, although expensive in terms of care costs for dad, better to keep it simple. Old people can't understand change so even something as simple as replacing lightbulbs with LEDs was a nightmare. Let alone rewriting a will, in mum's case. She would have refused to make any changes.

No Deed of Variation?

[Eric the Half a Bee]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Central government allocates to local councils

They ain't allocating enough money is the short of it

Not quite. A few years ago the government slashed funding councils in return for local authorities being able to keep more business rates. Needless to say, if you're in a poorer area where you can't make as much through business rates, your council is worse off.

[Re-sign Carl Dale]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

That sounds to me that leaving 50% of a house to anyone but a surviving spouse can cause multiple problems. However, Ian Dale was suggesting that a will should NOT specify that spouses should leave their 50% share of a property to their surviving spouse. It seems whatever you do the local authority will get their money from the property either through paying fees as they accumulate or by deferred payment. As far as I can tell the new arrangements won't change this.

I would never leave my assets directly to my wife - there are a number of reasons, care costs being one, and the way that she's eying up the postman being another!!!! My will states that it's in Trust for the children, but she's got full use over everything I leave for the rest of her life. But when she dies, everything I have left (ie my half of house, investments etc) then goes back to our children (still in Trust, to protect from any issues they may have in the future). Incidently her Will says the same!!!!

This will ensure that whatever happens, the LA can - at worst - only take half the house (my half is in Trust, so doesn't belong to my wife) - in reality it's likely to better than half, however that's getting more complicated than on a messageboard!!!

[Feedback]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Yes - the last part is correct, in that the property is protected, although potentially a charge from the LA could be put against the surviving spouses' 50%

You are also right about it being a nightmare (plus other tax complications) for a house to be owned 50% by widow and the rest amongst the children. Aside from any issues about wanting to sell, if someone gets divorced, what was mum & dad's home would be part of the settlement!!!

More common would be to use a Trust - that's what we do for our clients. Simply put, when one partner dies, their half of the house goes in Trust for the children, however the condition is that the surviving spouse lives there (rent free) for the rest of their life. The children don't have any control / access until both parents die. This solves any tax issues, and it's not part of the estate of the children in the event of family breakups, bankruptcy etc.

What about interest in possession or GROB for the surviving spouse?

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Not quite. A few years ago the government slashed funding councils in return for local authorities being able to keep more business rates. Needless to say, if you're in a poorer area where you can't make as much through business rates, your council is worse off.

Which is most of South Wales

[Re-sign Carl Dale]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

What about interest in possession or GROB for the surviving spouse?

Now we’re taking!!

Depending on the objectives and estate size, I would either use a Life Interest Trust or a Discretionary Trust / IIP (to still allow any residence Nil Rate Band to be claimed).

For the Life Interest route there’s no GROB as it’s all deemed to be in the estate of the surviving partner - and it’s effectively ignored for IHT on first death.

For a Discretionary Trust, as there’s no absolute entitlement then there’s no Gift With Reservation implications anyway.

[Feedback]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Now we’re taking!!

Depending on the objectives and estate size, I would either use a Life Interest Trust or a Discretionary Trust / IIP (to still allow any residence Nil Rate Band to be claimed).

For the Life Interest route there’s no GROB as it’s all deemed to be in the estate of the surviving partner - and it’s effectively ignored for IHT on first death.

For a Discretionary Trust, as there’s no absolute entitlement then there’s no Gift With Reservation implications anyway.

If there's no market rent paid then the Care Act 2014 results in the life tenant bearing the cost of care, not the surviving spouse.

Use Trusts carefully, as they don't often protect you in the way intended.

[Nobody's Rep]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

The expensive private providers don't tend to be on the local authority approved list , the ones that are cheaper are though .......so the council awards the contracts to those which come in with the lowest bids

And these companies pay very poor wages

Residential care for adults is very rarely tendered - they rely on finding spaces that are void in any given home - most residential homes have a variety of charges in their homes dependant on the source of the care package

Nursing home spaces are different to residential care as these are purchased by the health boards in the main

Domiciliary care is usually the area that gets tendered more often and this is done on bundles of hours rather than individuals to begin with.

So it's up to all providers to decide what they bid for and what they don't not about any pre determined council lists

[Joe Gillis]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

The richest in the UK made huge amounts of money on the back of the pandemic, why not tax them?

Answer - because the tories have been bought out by them and the average person from the UK decides its immigrants fault instead of the mega rich (thanks to the daily mail and the sun)

What a load of bollocks, knee jerk tory bashing will never die in Wales

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

Residential care for adults is very rarely tendered - they rely on finding spaces that are void in any given home - most residential homes have a variety of charges in their homes dependant on the source of the care package

Nursing home spaces are different to residential care as these are purchased by the health boards in the main

Domiciliary care is usually the area that gets tendered more often and this is done on bundles of hours rather than individuals to begin with.

So it's up to all providers to decide what they bid for and what they don't not about any pre determined council lists

I am talking about care at home , using the brokerage system

The council put out a alert that a care package is up for grabs and that goes to the councils list of approved providers who make the bid if they have capacity

From my experience I am amazed how any of these care companies get clearance to provide a service as they are short of staff , those that are still there are over worked and a lot of the carers are hopeless .

If the NHS or councils employed care staff and paid them a decent wage it would be a start

[SLUDGE FACTORY]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

What a load of bollocks, knee jerk tory bashing will never die in Wales

It's not just a welsh thing

Plenty of English and Scottish people don't like them

[Rjk]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

What a load of bollocks, knee jerk tory bashing will never die in Wales

good

[Tuerto]

Re: So it's National Insurance then

I am talking about care at home , using the brokerage system

The council put out a alert that a care package is up for grabs and that goes to the councils list of approved providers who make the bid if they have capacity

From my experience I am amazed how any of these care companies get clearance to provide a service as they are short of staff , those that are still there are over worked and a lot of the carers are hopeless .

If the NHS or councils employed care staff and paid them a decent wage it would be a start

Spot on. Carers who work for an agency, aren't paid travelling time or gaps between calls. They could have their first call at 4pm, and their last at 10.30pm. But with only 6 or 7 half hour calls, maybe 4 hrs work, at £9 per hour, that's £37 and out for 6.5 hrs, plus wear and tear on the car. ****ing disgrace.