Hello, this is the second of many questions that I am hoping that someone can answer. For a history of where my sister and I are at please see our earlier posting under NHS.

well, as I have explained in the other post, the council is intent on evicting our dad from the family home which legally is owned by a family trust (50%) and mum (50%). In addition they are also wanting to have 50% of what monies are in joint accounts (mum & dad) and the whole amount that are in mum's name only (being money/shares that dad deposited there over the past 30+ years).

Mum has about £287,000 in her own name mainly in bonds and shares with another £88,000 in joint accounts.

The state of play is that mum owns 50% of the home being £325,000 + £287,000 + £44,000 = £656,000

whereas dad legally ends up with £44,000!! The original source of all of that money is dad, he earned every penny of it, but put the vast majority of it in mum's name.

We are seriously thinking of thwarting the council and getting dad to clear out all of the money in the joint accounts. This will at least give him enough money to live on and be able to rent somewhere when he is evicted.

The council as far as we can understand would try to get the £44,000 off him. Does that sound reasonable giving how hard faced the council are being with mum & dad's home? Obviously the money would be in various bank accounts that both my sister and I operate.

Dad is of the opinion that if the council do come after the money and they eventually obtain a legal order "he will set fire to the whole bloody lot and than no one gets it!"

If your father clears out the joint accounts, the LA could/would look upon it as deliberate deprivation of capital and still assume the £44,000 belongs to your mother. Likewise, setting fire to the whole lot, the LA would still see the same figures on paper from their initial assessment and base their calculations on them.

Burning the lot achieves nothing.

For reference, the other thread is here: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?442005-Paying-for-Social-Care

I agree with Mr P about the LA's powers.

I imagine your parents had the Trust drawn up by a solicitor and would expect a good one to talk them through the ramifications of having everything in your mother's/the Trust's names.

As advised on your other thread, I would suggest seeking legal advice.

HB

I agree with Mr P about the LA's powers.

 

I imagine your parents had the Trust drawn up by a solicitor and would expect a good one to talk them through the ramifications of having everything in your mother's/the Trust's names.

 

As advised on your other thread, I would suggest seeking legal advice.

 

HB

Hello and thanks. By the time the trust was decided upon and set up mum had already owned the house in her own right for over 10 years. Without the money from the trust being used to repay the outstanding mortgage, mum would still be in debt with dad having to carry on working having to pay the monthly repayment of interest. It seemed the sensible solution to have mum sell half the house to clear the mortgage, much the same as equity release does.

Dad has never featured on the deeds of any of their homes over the past years. He always bought them out of the sale of one plus additional savings.

I think you need to get a solicitor involved on this one.

It sounds like your dad does not own any of the property. He effectively gave his interest in the property to his grandchildren 22 years ago. It isn't clear from your other thread why he did that, but presumably he did it to avoid paying inheritance tax. The difficulty is that he can't tell the taxman he doesn't own the property while telling the LA that he does own the property. The trust has complicated things and I think you will need a solicitor to help unravel it.

I'm not an expert in this stuff but I would think the LA would need to have secured an interest over mum's share before going for eviction?

I think you need to get a solicitor involved on this one.

 

It sounds like your dad does not own any of the property. He effectively gave his interest in the property to his grandchildren 22 years ago. It isn't clear from your other thread why he did that, but presumably he did it to avoid paying inheritance tax. The difficulty is that he can't tell the taxman he doesn't own the property while telling the LA that he does own the property. The trust has complicated things and I think you will need a solicitor to help unravel it.

 

 

I'm not an expert in this stuff but I would think the LA would need to have secured an interest over mum's share before going for eviction?

Hello & thanks. No on paper he doesn't own a thing other than a half share on the joint deposit accounts. He never has done, all of their previous homes and the current one were in mum's only (although dad provided all of the funds to buy them). As such he couldn't give away what he never had. Yes it was to do with avoiding taxes on death.

He might not own any of the property as per the deeds, but he must have a financial interest in the half registered to mum? The trust side is OK, the council aren't bothered about that, they want the 50% that is in mum's name, whereas we would like dad to have half and the other half to go to the council.

It seems after reading more about this, that if and when the council get control of mum's affairs, they can pretty much do what they want with the house and other monies. The trust would have no objections if the council want to sell it as half the proceeds will go back to the trust to invest elsewhere (so the trustees have told me)

I think each half of the property can only be owned by one person. Unfortunately my impression is that it would be difficult to convince the council or a court that dad was the 'true' owner of a share which was registered in mum's name, given that dad has given his share away to a family trust.

I wonder if there is still some way to avoid eviction though - for example, if the trustees entered into a lease agreement with dad.

I think each half of the property can only be owned by one person. Unfortunately my impression is that it would be difficult to convince the council or a court that dad was the 'true' owner of a share which was registered in mum's name, given that dad has given his share away to a family trust.

 

 

I wonder if there is still some way to avoid eviction though - for example, if the trustees entered into a lease agreement with dad.

Hello and thanks. Dad never gave anything away, he didn't have anything to give away. He was never recorded on the deeds of the property. Up until when the trust came along and paid off the mortgage, the house, according to the deeds, only had one owner - our mum.

I agree and if it was only the trust that is involved, that would be the best way forward. However, the council are involved and they want the 50% that is registered in mum's name. The council are saying that as dad has no legal right to occupy (he only has a licence to occupy which can be rescinded at any time) the property or obvious financial interest in it (mum has 50% and the trust has the other 50%), they would like to see the property sold. The trust isn't bothered either way, it has no objection if the council want to go down that route.

Ironically it was dad's money that was used to buy the house in the first place - deposit of £280,000 I think, and dad paid the mortgage (£280,000) every month out of his earnings for years. He put the house (as he did with previous homes, in his wife's name as security for her if anything should have happened to him.

Put it bluntly, dad is being treated as a squatter. The council have told him that it is their intention to rescind the licence when they obtain the powers from the court thereby making him homeless.