Local Authorities Trying To Bankrupt your Elderly Relative?

J

janishere

Guest
Local Authorities Bankrupting Your Elderly Relatives

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

sue38 said:
janishere said:
what is the situation for up to 2 years re bankruptcy Sue?/QUOTE]

Any transaction at undervalue where the person is in the next 2 years declared bankrupt may be open to attack. This is even if the person was not bankrupt at the time and had no reason to think that they would go bankrupt in the next two years.

Well Sue I was just asking you a question and you answered it and thanks.

Regarding your quote above, nothing wrong with it, but I wanted to add a bit more detail for the benefit of those who are worried that the Local Authority might try to make their elderly relative bankrupt for giving away their cash and property to their children or granchildren to protect it from theft by our dear local governments.

If an asset is gifted or conveyed at an undervalue (i.e. not for its full financial value at the time of the transaction) it can, in certain circumstances, be set aside by the trustee in bankruptcy.

The Five Year Limit - If the transaction was within five years of the bankruptcy petition being issued at court, it may be open to attack. The trustee in bankruptcy must prove however that the transaction was at an undervalue and that the individual was insolvent at the time of the transaction or became insolvent as a consequence of the transaction.

The Two Year Limit - if the transaction took place within two years of the bankruptcy petition being presented there is no need for the Trustee in Bankruptcy to show insolvency. Insolvency is presumed if the transaction was with "An Associate" (e.g. family member or friend)] This presumption is of course rebuttable[/i]. Insolvency is defined as an individual being unable to pay his/her debts as they fall due.

Now in most cases such a presumption would be easily rebuttable! The only thing the "Associates" (family members/friends) would have to do to rebut the presumption is to prove to the Bankruptcy Court that their elderly relative was not insolvent at the time of the transfer to he/she/them of the elderly relative's property or cash. If the elderly person had enough money of their own in income and capital left to pay off their usual bills, the Trustee in Bankruptcy would not succeed in claiming any money back from a transfer of property by the elderly relative to the Associates.

So most of you "Associates" have nothing to worry about unless your elderly relative was deeply in debt at the time.

I also think it will be quite difficult for Local Authorities to make an elderly person with AD bankrupt, which is why very few of them bother (as well as because they do not like the bad publicity). If the elderly person was put in a care home by their Local Authority without his or her valid consent (difficult to prove valid consent with AD sufferers) and the Nearest Relative/Main Carer also did not give consent either, and the nursing/residential home bills are the "debt" the Local Authority wants repaid (as is usually the case), the elderly AD sufferer and their relatives/carers can validly argue that there is no "debt" because there was compulsion used and no contract to pay fees was ever entered into by them or the elderly relative.

Yes well as I say that is why most LA's don't bother with expensive bankruptcy proceedings in this situation - a waste of local council taxpayer's money too, for which they would be accountable.

There are also too many elderly people out there wisely transferring their property and cash to their relatives - it would cost the local authorities a fortune in legal fees to chase them all up, whether they use bankruptcy or HASSASSA/common law as a tool to do so.

So my message to you all out there is FEAR NOT! you have every right to fight this unlawful government theft of your relatives' estates with every legal weapon at your disposal.

A final word. No one seems to have yet considered the effect of the use of human rights legislation as an assault on some of the bad laws made by this and previous British governments (including Conservative). The European Court of Human Rights is there for the use of all of us citizens and the various charities like Liberty and Human Rights Lawyers and we should use it.
 
J

janishere

Guest
Readers of this forum have the right even if you don't agree with it

I felt it deserved a new thread Skye - have you noticed how many people were reading the EPA thread - a large number of people - so while you may not be interested, a lot of other people are and they deserve the chance to find out about important legal matters, don't you agree?
 
J

janishere

Guest
Another point ...

Mmm Skye I see you are from Scotland, so no wonder you are not bothered by this issue as care for AD sufferers is free in your country, but not in England
 

Skye

Registered User
Aug 29, 2006
17,000
SW Scotland
Utter nonsense, janishere. I am the elderly relative, and when the time comes, I will pay for my husband's care from our joint resources.

But you have now confirmed our suspicions that your interest is political, rather than a concern for people with Alzheimer's and their carers.

Is it my turn now to be the butt of your attack?
 
Last edited:

chip

Registered User
Jul 19, 2005
400
Scotland
Care is not free in Scotland. Care is expensive. Local Government charge for care and will take all. Over 65's get free personal care but have to pay the rest. If you are younger you have to pay.
 

Grannie G

Volunteer Moderator
Apr 3, 2006
70,674
Kent
Janis

I believe you are making a niusance of yourself and your only contribution to this thread is an intention to stir.

If you have such an important message to impart, may I suggest you do it in a less aggressive manner. Instead of members getting behind you, you are shooting yourself in the foot, as they are generating their anger towards you, rather than towards your campaign.
 

jenniferpa

Registered User
Jun 27, 2006
39,448
And please lets not confuse number of views with number of members. Each time someone views a thread it "counts" yet many of those will be duplicates.

Note: if you start attacking Hazel and Sylvia, who are unfailing supportive of others, your message will be completely lost (if in fact you have one).