Some estate planning products were sold with confidence that the law simply did not support.
The rules around care fee planning were not unclear. Advisers knew, or should have known, exactly how local authorities could challenge these arrangements. The problem was not uncertainty. The problem was that explaining it honestly would have made the product harder to sell.
The legal framework that existed
The rules that allow local authorities to challenge transfers of assets in the context of care funding assessments have been in place for many years. The guidance explaining how those rules operate was publicly available throughout the period during which property trusts were widely sold. Estate planning companies that sold these arrangements were operating in a legal environment they were obligated to understand.
If they were aware of the deliberate deprivation rules and chose not to explain them, they were withholding information directly relevant to the client's decision. If they were not aware of those rules, they were advising on a subject without the foundational knowledge needed to do so competently. Neither position is defensible.
The confidence that was projected
What made the situation worse for many families was not just that the limitations were not explained. It was the way the arrangements were actively promoted as dependable and proven. These were not advisers presenting possible options with uncertain outcomes. They described the trust as a solution. Some guaranteed protection. They produced documentation that read like a binding commitment and collected substantial fees on that basis.
The confidence with which this advice was delivered was not warranted by the legal position as it actually stood. Whether it reflected a genuine misunderstanding of the law or a commercial decision to present the product more favourably than accuracy allowed, the effect was the same. Families relied on assurances that had no proper legal foundation and suffered when the protection failed to materialise.
The negligence claim
Presenting a legal outcome as certain when it is not is itself a professional failing. A competent adviser does not guarantee results that the law does not guarantee. When an adviser does exactly that, and a client makes a significant financial decision in reliance on that assurance, and then suffers a loss because the assurance was unfounded, the professional negligence case is relatively straightforward.
The claim requires showing that the advice given did not accurately represent the legal position, and that a client who had been given an accurate picture would have made a different decision, or would at least have been in a position to weigh the real risks properly. Where a family paid thousands for an arrangement they would not have entered into if they had understood the limitations, both of those elements are capable of being established.
How the claim is assessed
Assessing whether the advice can found a professional negligence claim means looking carefully at what the adviser said, how they presented the arrangement, and what a competent adviser in that field would have said differently. The documentation produced at the time of the sale, including any written advice, the trust documentation, and promotional materials, is central to that assessment.
Sold Short's panel solicitors are experienced in reviewing estate planning advice of this kind. They know what adequate advice in this area looks like, and they can identify quickly whether the advice given to a particular family met that standard. The assessment is free and carries no commitment.
These were not advisers presenting possible options with uncertain outcomes. They presented guarantees the law did not support.
Sold Short helps families pursue professional negligence claims arising from failed estate planning advice. Free review. No win no fee.