could a inlaw gesture be a gesture too much?

LondonsFinest

hi everyone
Ok question..... i work full time and recieve about £200 a month housing benefit to cover myself, my daughter and my partner ( not working - looking after daughter ..cheaper childcare blah blah blah)

Anyway my landlady i havent seen or heard in years ( i have posted about this before and have gone down paths to trace her etc)

now because of this my inlaws have suggested they could potentially get a morgage in their name and me and the family live there.. they would find out what the rent would be if it were to go on the market.

Now would i still get housing benefit ? as this property would be in my inlaws name?

any advice much appreciated

nannytone_2

if they are buying a house just to rent to you.........then the answer would be no....it would be a 'contrived tenancy'

if they bough a property on a buy to let mortgage, then possiblyt. it would depend if the council see it as an investment or just accomodation for your family.

Mojisola

nannytone wrote: »

if they are buying a house just to rent to you.........then the answer would be no....it would be a 'contrived tenancy'

if they bough a property on a buy to let mortgage, then possiblyt. it would depend if the council see it as an investment or just accomodation for your family.

This is good advice. Plus your in-laws would be landlords with all the legal and tax implications.

paddedjohn

so, because you havnt seen or heard from your landlady in years this means you can buy the house? im confused. If your inlaws bought a house to rent to you would they be prepared to evict you if you didnt pay the rent for whatever reason?

LondonsFinest

paddedjohn wrote: »

so, because you havnt seen or heard from your landlady in years this means you can buy the house? im confused. If your inlaws bought a house to rent to you would they be prepared to evict you if you didnt pay the rent for whatever reason?

Sorry let me explain - landlady has not been heard from in years...i have paid to have the boiler serviced etc each year which i know is down to her but becuase i will be having a new baby any day now etc the inlaws are now in a better financial position to get a morgage on another property and we move in to that and pay the rent ( i / my partner are unable to get a morgage in our own right etc)

so basically if we didnt pay then yes we would be chucked out as they would need to pay the morgage payments each month.

nannytone_2

to be honest, i dont think theres much chance of success as far as benefit goes.

phone your local council and ask them if it would be acceptable.

cit_k

The powers that be would rather pay housing benefit so you can pay a stranger rent, and the stranger can pay of their mortage, and then KEEP charging you rent, so the powers that be have to keep on paying housing benefit for ever.

Rather than paying housing benefit to a family member or yourself, who could pay of the mortgage, and then stop charging rent, meaning no more housing benefit payment is needed.

Like most things benefit wise, its set up to cause maximum cost to the taxpayer, and maximum damage to claimaints.

Anubis_2

Rather than paying housing benefit to a family member or yourself, who could pay of the mortgage, and then stop charging rent, meaning no more housing benefit payment is needed.

But don't you see, that if they allowed this, that many would buy a house and rent to their family members who are in low income, and receive hb therefore paying for the house! That way people could buy a house and get it paid for using benefit money.

Once the mortgage has been paid, the family end up with a nice house investment that hadn't cost them penny, and which they can sell. This is why it should not be allowed.

Now, if a family has had a house for a few years - therefore paying the mortgage then a family member hits on hard times and they rent their house out to that family member, then that may be allowed because the house was not purchased with the intention of getting taxes to pay for the mortgage.

I understand what you mean about a stranger, but you have to get a specific mortgage and insurance when you rent a property. It is illegal AFAIAA to rent a property out while paying a "normal" mortgage.

seven-day-weekend

Anubis wrote: »

But don't you see, that if they allowed this, that many would buy a house and rent to their family members who are in low income, and receive hb therefore paying for the house! That way people could buy a house and get it paid for using benefit money.

Once the mortgage has been paid, the family end up with a nice house investment that hadn't cost them penny, and which they can sell. This is why it should not be allowed.

Now, if a family has had a house for a few years - therefore paying the mortgage then a family member hits on hard times and they rent their house out to that family member, then that may be allowed because the house was not purchased with the intention of getting taxes to pay for the mortgage.

I understand what you mean about a stranger, but you have to get a specific mortgage and insurance when you rent a property. It is illegal AFAIAA to rent a property out while paying a "normal" mortgage.

It is not illegal, afaik, providing you have official 'consent to let' from the lender. This is what we did with a flat we owned.

Our son lived in it for a while, and he was able to claim HB when he became unemployed, as we could prove the flat had been available to rent on the open market.

LondonsFinest

Anubis wrote: »

Once the mortgage has been paid, the family end up with a nice house investment that hadn't cost them penny, and which they can sell. This is why it should not be allowed

This is where i think the point is being missed....

regardless of whether you are paying the rent out of your salary or if the council are paying full or partial hb allowance then end of the day that money is still paying morgage and obvisley will in time end up paying the house morgage off... leaving the landlady/lord with a morgage free property... i think thats the the whole point of buy to let?????

i do appreciate what you are saying to an extent but my issue is ...you and me could both be getting the same amount of income plus any housing benefit , yet i would have to go elsewhere because they are my inlaws... you would still be paying the inlaws morgage just like i would be???

cit_k

Anubis wrote: »

But don't you see, that if they allowed this, that many would buy a house and rent to their family members who are in low income, and receive hb therefore paying for the house! That way people could buy a house and get it paid for using benefit money.

Once the mortgage has been paid, the family end up with a nice house investment that hadn't cost them penny, and which they can sell. This is why it should not be allowed.

Now, if a family has had a house for a few years - therefore paying the mortgage then a family member hits on hard times and they rent their house out to that family member, then that may be allowed because the house was not purchased with the intention of getting taxes to pay for the mortgage.

I understand what you mean about a stranger, but you have to get a specific mortgage and insurance when you rent a property. It is illegal AFAIAA to rent a property out while paying a "normal" mortgage.

Simply make it a condition that if they sell the house, or the family moves out, they have to repay all housing benefit that was paid. For a certain length of time anyways.

Wont a specific mortgage with insurance still be cheaper than the extortionate rent most landlords charge LHA claimaints?