When advisers sold property trusts as protection against care fees, many of them sounded extremely confident. The arrangement was presented as a proven solution. The risks were downplayed or not mentioned at all. Families left those meetings believing they had sorted the problem, when in reality they had bought something far less reliable than they had been told.
Why the certainty was not there
Local authorities can treat a transfer of property as deliberate deprivation if avoiding care fees was one of the reasons behind it, even if it was not the only reason. That means many transfers that were presented as clearly protected are not protected at all.
There is also no cut-off point after which a past transfer automatically becomes safe. Local authorities can look back as far as they need to if they believe an asset was moved to reduce what would be assessed. Advisers who told clients the transfer would be safe after a certain number of years had passed were simply wrong. That was not how the law worked.
An adviser who genuinely understood this area would have known all of that. Presenting the arrangement as reliable protection, without those caveats, was either a misunderstanding of the rules or a decision to leave out the parts that would make the sale harder. Neither is acceptable.
What the advice should have included
A competent adviser in this area would have been straight with the client. They would have explained that a trust arrangement might work in some circumstances and might be challenged in others. They would have been clear that local authorities have real discretion and that nobody can predict the outcome with certainty.
That would not necessarily have stopped people from going ahead. Many would still have chosen to put arrangements in place, knowing the limitations. But they would have known what they were getting into. They would not have been blindsided when the protection they had paid for did not materialise.
Who is responsible
Not giving proper legal advice is not a defence just because the person giving the advice was not a solicitor. Estate planning companies and will writers who present themselves as able to advise on protecting assets from care fees are expected to give accurate advice. Telling clients something is more reliable or more certain than it actually is falls below the standard they are held to. The fact that many families suffered serious financial consequences as a result makes it more important, not less, that they know there is a route to accountability.
What a review looks like
Looking at whether the advice was adequate means going back to what was actually said and what was in the documentation at the time. It means asking whether the picture given to the client was an honest and complete one. A specialist solicitor who works in this area knows what proper advice should have covered, and can form a view quickly on whether the advice given here measured up.
That review is free through Sold Short. It does not commit the family to anything. It just answers the question of whether what happened to them was good enough, and if not, what can be done about it.
Telling a client something is certain when it is not is a professional failure. Families who relied on that advice have a route to redress.
Sold Short helps families who received inadequate estate planning advice connect with specialist professional negligence solicitors. Free assessment. No win no fee.
