In that case, it comes down to the so-called presumptions of "advancement" and "resulting trusts". They are rather archaic but still have their uses in trying to sort out the ownership of property in these circumstances..
The latter says that if you put property of your own into the name of another (essentially a nominee account), you do not intend to make them a gift of it. The beneficial interest in the property "results" to you.
However in some cases, such as a parent providing for a child, the reverse is true. It is presumed that a gift was intended if the money can be seen as help with "setting them up in life" (advancement). There is some case law which indicates that this needs to be help with getting a foot on the career ladder (or, historically for women, marriage...let's not go there), and probably does not apply to older childrent who are now managing their advancement very nicely.
However both presumptions are very weak and can easily be rebutted by quite slight evidence - eg that it happened around Christmas or the recipient's birthday or marriage, or that it was made clear to the recipient at the time that this was being done for a good reason and the property was not really theirs. There are problems about reasons which are fraudulent (eg, to evade tax).
Retrospective evidence of the reason fro the transfer can only be used to affirm, not rebut, the presumptions. But I am not sure what presumptions would apply here or even whther (in the 10 years since I was last working in the area of trusts) the case law has changed so that the presumptions are no longer regarded as having any legal standing at all. They were certainly weakening all the time.
What evidence there is here indicates that the father's intention was to provide for the son, after his own death. This may indicate that there is a gift, but not an immediate one. However, as already noted, there is no right to hold an ISA on trust without tax penalties. I think Claire is right and a good equity solicitor is needed to try to get to the bottom of this and then snow DWP with the results, suitably complicated.
|