Imagine pouring your heart and savings into securing your family's future, only to discover it might have all been for naught. This is the harsh reality faced by Joyce Gifford and countless others who placed their trust in 'family protection trusts.'
In 2018, 72-year-old Joyce Gifford, seeking to safeguard her home for her children, signed her property over to a trust promoted by McClure solicitors. She was assured it would shield her home from potential care fees. But here's where it gets controversial: In 2023, two years after the firm went bust and her husband passed away, she found out she was no longer the legal owner of her own home. The feeling? "Sick."
Trusts, in theory, are designed to manage assets, including property, potentially protecting them from being used to cover care fees. However, this strategy can be viewed by local authorities as an attempt to hide assets, which is known as 'deprivation of assets' and can be challenged. Mrs. Gifford, like many, didn't fully grasp this crucial detail when she signed up.
McClure's representative visited the Giffords, emphasizing the need for a trust to protect their home, especially given Mr. Gifford's declining health. The promise was clear: the council couldn't touch the house, and their children would inherit it. The cost? A hefty £4,486. But four years later, a visit to the bank revealed McClure's collapse, and the Giffords' names were off the deeds, replaced by the trust corporation.
Mrs. Gifford's experience highlights the emotional toll: "I felt sick, I didn't know which way to go... I cried and cried... I still can't sleep now."
Andrew Robertson, a former director of McClure, defends the trusts, stating they were not mis-sold and were a "good product." However, Jade Gani, chair of the Association of Lifetime Lawyers, counters that these trusts are often ineffective for inheritance tax or avoiding care fees, as there are rules that can bring assets back into the estate.
But what about the legal side of things? The police in Scotland investigated McClure but found no evidence of criminal activity. Mrs. Gifford is now working with a solicitor to reclaim her home.
Lee Jackson, from Truro, shares a similar story. He and his wife lost £12,000 trying to dissolve their trust. A McClure representative allegedly used fear tactics, warning of inheritance tax and the risk of losing their home to care fees. They were told the trust would 'ring-fence' their property. After McClure's collapse, they were contacted by Jones Whyte, which offered to review their files for a fee. This led Jackson to a Facebook group, "Victims of McClure's," where their story was echoed by many.
Jackson's experience revealed the trust was essentially worthless. Independent tax advice showed no inheritance tax risk, and his solicitor dismissed the care home fee protection claims as untrue. The Jacksons are now back on their deeds, but the ordeal has left them shaken.
Mr. Robertson maintains that the trusts were designed to protect against care and probate costs, not inheritance tax. He asserts that the vast majority of the 20,000+ trusts arranged were understood and satisfactory. However, the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has criticized Jones Whyte for slow communication with clients and is pushing for improvements. Jones Whyte claims all clients were notified by the end of May 2025.
The SRA advises anyone in England with service concerns to contact the Legal Ombudsman. Meanwhile, the Association of Lifetime Lawyers is advocating for stricter regulations on selling asset protection trusts.
So, what do you think? Are these trusts a valuable tool for protecting assets, or are they a source of confusion and potential financial loss? Share your thoughts in the comments below. Do you think the benefits outweigh the risks, or is it a case of 'buyer beware'?
