I need to know my rights for means tested benifits

princessdon

I can't help but think this was a DOC attempt gone wrong - not sure why I think that, just a very general feeling.

epitome

skintandscared wrote: »

The mortgage wasn't taken out on the new property. They re-mortgaged their own property to buy the new one, and borrowed 115% of the price so they could also do it up. So they now effectively own the new property outright and have a mortgage on their own home.

Yes, so now they have a house which is worth more than they bought it for, why not sell it and pay off most, if not all of the mortgage?

I don't see how PPI could be claimed? They haven't said they can't actually afford the mortgage payments and the mortgage was only taken out in April this year.

If they have a PPI policy they could make a claim subject to their being no "get out clause" of claiming in the first year.

I can't comment on the other suggestions to play the system because I don't have any knowledge of them. Except I'd be surprised they'd be available when you have such a large asset so recently acquired...

I never said 'play the system' I pointed out they may have legitimate entitlement to contributions based claims, and not a lot of people know that you can claim 'conts' again using different tax years.

skintandscared_2

epitome wrote: »

Yes, so now they have a house which is worth more than they bought it for, why not sell it and pay off most, if not all of the mortgage?

If they have a PPI policy they could make a claim subject to their being no "get out clause" of claiming in the first year.

I never said 'play the system' I pointed out they may have legitimate entitlement to contributions based claims, and not a lot of people know that you can claim 'conts' again using different tax years.

Where does it say that the parents actually used the additional 15% to improve the new property and that the value has increased to above 115% of the mortgage taken out just 3 months ago?

Do you think it's likely that a PPI policy would exist whereby you could claim on it just 3 months after it was taken out, on a second property? It may well be possible, I don't know.

Considering they now own two properties it would probably be better to get some rent off the son rather than expect the taxpayers to fund those two properties for them....

JodyBPM

Surely they could move into the outright owned house (son would either have to live with them or rent his own place) and sell their mortgaged property. This would allow them to pay off the mortgage, and possibly have a bit of cash if there is still some equity in the house. Assuming any residual cash they have is below the threshold, then they would be entitled to means tested benefits again, and would no longer have a mortgage to pay. Obviously they'd be no longer gifting their son a free house, but to be fair, how many people (on benefits or otherwise) can afford to do that?

epitome

skintandscared wrote: »

Where does it say that the parents actually used the additional 15% to improve the new property

The OP says 15% more to "fix it up" and you also said in your post "115% so they could also do it up" So we all agree that that the extra money was to fix up the newly bought house/

and that the value has increased to above 115% of the mortgage taken out just 3 months ago?

Logically if you buy a house for 80K and you spend 12K on it it is going to be worth near to 92K if not a lot more, don't you watch homes under the hammer?

Do you think it's likely that a PPI policy would exist whereby you could claim on it just 3 months after it was taken out, on a second property? It may well be possible, I don't know.

Well if I had a PPI policy I know I'd be looking at it if I lost my job.

Considering they now own two properties it would probably be better to get some rent off the son rather than expect the taxpayers to fund those two properties for them....

But then what do they live on? Rent might pay the mortgage, but they then still need another £111 a week to live on. I say sell the wee house recover the capital pay off the mortgage and they might find themselves in a position where they are entitled to income based benefits.

Mojisola

epitome wrote: »

I say sell the wee house recover the capital pay off the mortgage and they might find themselves in a position where they are entitled to income based benefits.

This would still be seen as DOC. They could sell the other house and then live off the capital until it drops low enough to claim benefits but they couldn't pay off the mortgage early.

epitome

I don't see why not, it is a mortgage on their residential home, they must be allowed to pay off such a loan and streamline their finances.

I don't know the rules on this, so perhaps you can explain why they can't pay back a mortgage on their residence?

Mojisola

epitome wrote: »

I don't know the rules on this, so perhaps you can explain why they can't pay back a mortgage on their residence?

Because you are allowed to keep paying back a debt at the usual rate but not pay off a debt early if that means you then need to claim benefits.

If you have a lump sum that you could use to live off, why should the taxpayer pay you money each week?