worrying news this morning

Yorkie1

I suggest you get down off your high horse for a moment, OP, and stop being so defensive to a poster who has given good general advice.

You have said that you are responsible for your father's investments. You have also said that you are considering investing his money on his behalf in property. Therefore on your own posts, he is not giving you the money (and it would not be lawful for you, as attorney, to decide that it's in his interests to divest himself of such funds by giving away title to them to you). Therefore the investment has to remain in his name / part of his assets.

In your original posts, you said that the main thing was that you would have a roof over your head as it would be your primary residence. That appears to be a clear conflict of interest by portraying your investment decisions as being motivated by a desire to benefit you. It may not be your main motivation, but that's what you wrote.

You sought advice / opinions and you got them. Others may also be reading this thread for reference, and so it is only right to raise issues which are evident from the information you chose to post. Just because the information isn't what you perhaps planned on hearing, doesn't mean that you can be abusive to other posters.

atush

Yorkie1 wrote: »

I suggest you get down off your high horse for a moment, OP, and stop being so defensive to a poster who has given good general advice.

You have said that you are responsible for your father's investments. You have also said that you are considering investing his money on his behalf in property. Therefore on your own posts, he is not giving you the money (and it would not be lawful for you, as attorney, to decide that it's in his interests to divest himself of such funds by giving away title to them to you). Therefore the investment has to remain in his name / part of his assets.

In your original posts, you said that the main thing was that you would have a roof over your head as it would be your primary residence. That appears to be a clear conflict of interest by portraying your investment decisions as being motivated by a desire to benefit you. It may not be your main motivation, but that's what you wrote.

You sought advice / opinions and you got them. Others may also be reading this thread for reference, and so it is only right to raise issues which are evident from the information you chose to post. Just because the information isn't what you perhaps planned on hearing, doesn't mean that you can be abusive to other posters.

Sorry OP, but I am in agreement with Yorkie and others on this. If you are investing your father's money in a place for You to live than it could be a conflict of interest. If you are investing some of your own money into the joint purchace of a home for both you and your father to live in while you care for him, that is another matter.

And don't get all worked up if people assume certain things, as if you don't post all the relevant details our assumptions are entirely your fault for lack of info given.

Yorkie1

Gosh your cage really has been rattled hasn't it?

Again I will say it. If you seek advice then you get responses based on what you write.

Calling someone bigoted is abuse of the highest order. Hardly called for when all people have done is post based on what you wrote.

BobQ

peanutnboo wrote: »

really Bob ?

in the complete absence of any facts about our personal circumstances don't you think your assumptions here about who is buying what with whose money is rather arrogant? perhaps you have overlooked that in your haste to pontificate

Peanutnboo, I have given you good advice, within the limitations of the information you have provided. Cleary its not what you want to hear so you resort to abuse and call me arrogant and pontificating. This says more about you than me!

Of course I do not know the full circumstances - AS I SAID in my original response "Obviously the circumstances and the money involved may justify the action you plan but you should be careful of complying with your legal obligations."

I was simply trying to draw your attention to the fact that if your motives were questioned (by someone who rang the Office of the Public Guardian) you may need to justify your actions.

BobQ

peanutnboo wrote: »

perhaps instead of making assumptions you could ask !

Then your responses would be from an informed position rather than your own bigotory and ignorance

Please stop insulting people!

We do not know the circumstances but its not a game of "Twenty Questions" for us to find out how laudible your intentions are in investing your father's money. We can only go on what you say, and if you look back at what you have said here you might see that you have said things that suggest a conflict of interest (to be kind).

What do you think a LPA entitles you to do?

MrRee_2

My opinion is that cash is NOT safe ... the Guarantee would be torn up if Banks went to the wall - they cannot afford to pay everyone their £85,000!!

The idea of buying property is extremely wise .... at least you will have something to touch, feel, enjoy. If it is your home too then you are not renting and buying someone elses property for them!

If you will rent it then it doesn't matter - you will have income for ever.

I fully expect those who are cash rich to get back 10p in every £1 of savings ... up to about £25,000. That is all that could be afforded.

OK, house prices may drop 50% - but that's far better than getting just 10% of your savings back, up to a limit.

Just my opinion as I watch the French, Germans and IMF discussing which Banks to allow to go under and which ones to save ....... that's the rumour about what they are talking about as I type this.

MiserlyMartin

lewistye wrote: »

Look at a graph of house prices over any timescale more than 5 years... we are NOT at rock bottom.

Thats right. Although net savings rates are 2.5% or so below inflation (RPI), thats still an ok gain when housing currently is losing 3% before inflation... but thats just the start. Another leg down is coming. Personally I could buy a house tomorrow with savings, but I'd rather have the money in cash investments. A house ties you down, especially in this market when it may take years to sell. Cash you can take abroad and with the UK looking the dodgiest in years, socially and financially... I may not stick around, neither will others. The brain drain started years ago.

Regarding the last post about the FSCS, if the banks did collapse so badly that the FSCS collapsed too, the government would bail the fund out. The government would like last time bail out the banks I think as wrong as that may be, but if they don't, they would at least honour the FSCS as the bad banks get wound down in an orderly fashion - something I believe should have happened to HBOS - Lloyds would have been such a stronger bank now without the HBOS deal that Gordon Clown pushed through with disregard for EU competition law.