House Ownership dispute

meddy_2

Greetings, here are details of an on going mortgage dispute. Any solicitors/lawyers will find this interesing.
In 1985 my brother purchased a house valued at £70,000 and now it's value is about £350,000.
My name was on the deeds until 1990 because he wanted to change the mortgage over to another bank.
I agreed to take my name of the deeds (a mistake) as long as I received money from the sale of the house.
Now he intends to sell the house and give me nothing.
I have paid in cash over £60,000 some of which has gone on the morgage some towards the bills. (about 50/50)
Since 1990 he has had 20 lodgers + (2 at a time) staying in the property.
After consulting my solicitor she has come up with the conclusion that I am not a financial beneficiary to the property and she say's I am either a lodger or licencee.
As there are no rent books or records involved how can I be described as a 'lodger or licencee'?
If my brother was a 'landlord' would he not have to declare any money as 'taxable income'?
Incidently he has not declared tax on any of the cash he collected from the genuine lodgers.
Due to this fact he would obviously want to keep it well away from the courts.
My father suggests he should make an out of court settlement.
He has given me notice to move out by the end of April 2007, surely he has no right to do this.
I know when he tries to sell the house there is a form that must be filled in and section 8 questions such as : is there anybody else living in the house?
and Does he/she agree to leave before the sale? Also the house resident/s have to sign the form confirming their intentions of leaving.
This form I will not sign.
What is the likely outcome of this case, should I stay put and demand an out of court settlement or does he have the right to evict me?
My solicitor says this is a very unusual case. Advise please??

Melissa177

I'm so sorry that your relationship with your brother has gone this sour.

If you had a verbal agreement that the proceeds of the house sale would be split, is this not binding as a verbal contract? Do you have any proof of this agreement?

Has your father tried to intervene as a mediator, or is he taking your brother's side? Maybe another family member could help and act as a mediator.

benood

If you occupy on license I believe you can be evicted easily but as a lodger without a lease you may have a right to occupy.

I agree with your father but perhaps what your brother is prepared to pay is much less than you would settle for having seen him make a fortune on the property.

Surely, if "he bought the house", it's not unreasonable for him to take the profits??

kingkano

Sounds a tricky one. Some of your wording makes things hmmm more difficult.

You say 'my brother bought a house...' so you werent actually part of the purchase but got your name on the deeds? Why did you allow your name to be removed and did you get any kind of contract drawn up to the agreement of proceeds of sale? If not I think your solicitor might be right and you dont have much of a leg to stand on....

AS they correctly pointed out, he has had plenty of lodgers, and the money you paid could also be covered under 'rent' or lodgings. He could take around 4500 a year tax free under the rent a room scheme, not sure how long its been going tho?

olly300

The OP post is confusing she hasn't made it clear:
1. whether her brother lived in the house with her or not, and when
2. when she moved into the house
This makes a difference to what sort of tenancy she is claiming, her rights and how she can be evicted.

I would first contact shelter.org.uk and sort that out.

[Deleted User]

If your brother and yourself made a verbal contract that the house is to be split then thats what will happen if your dad backs you up and you go through the courts.

As for eviction I have no idea, but if i wanted a lodger out i have been told its easy if i go through the correct procedure.

meddy_2

There was a verbal agreement at the beginning that 'anything I put in I will get back,' that is why I agreed to my name going on the deeds.
After all if I am nothing to do with the purchase of the house why was my name on the deeds for 5 years?
Although I didn't put any money on the deposit, the house could not of been purchased without me.
As my name was on the deeds for the first five years I received about £1000 in tax rebates which also went towards paying the mortgage.
As for the £4500 tax free on the rent a room scheme, this is only fairly recent.
Having me in the house and two paying lodgers since 1990 there must be some 'unfinished business' with the tax man. (I know for sure nothing has been declared).
I must emphasise that I cannot be considered a 'lodger or licensee' because there are no rent books, tax records or written agreements of any kind which are compulsory for landlords and lodgers/licensees.
Adding to the confusion is that if I am considered a lodger/licensee by the courts that would mean that my brothers income would be even greater, i.e. I have paid over £60,000 in cash to him, surely if this came to court and this would obviously be found out would he not be shooting himself in the foot?
The sort of out of court settlement I am looking at is £40,000, because not 100% of the payments I made went on the mortgage, some went towards the bills.
I am not trying to be greedy I just want it to end fairly.
This is a very rare and tricky situation, even the solicitors seem quite baffled.

seven-day-weekend

I find this post confusing.

One sibling bought the house, the other's name is on the deeds.

Then the one who didn't buy the house is taken off the deeds but they still live there.

Where did the other sibling live (the one who bought the house)?
(If he also lived in the house, imho the OP can be considered to be a lodger,therefore it is not necessary to have a contract or rent book.)

The £60k given to the brother since 1990 by the OP works out (if I have done the sums right) as £67 pw, this could be considered to be rent in keeping with their status as a lodger.

However, the OP did have their name on the deeds for five years, so surely this should count for something?

Most confusing, I hope it gets sorted.

meddy_2

My brother paid the deposit, both our names were put on the deeds for the first 5 years 1985-1990.
When my name came of the deeds I continued paying towards the mortgage/bills.
Although my brother pays the mortgage I AM CONTRIBUTING.
I have paid roughly £60,000-£65,000.
I CANNOT be considered a lodger/licensee because:
A) There is no rent book or records of any kind.
There are no contracts or agreements.

Only because we are related does not mean the laws do not apply.
A landlord MUST: Keep records of payments received, including dates, amounts of cash, etc.

I therefore have an equitible interest in the property...Yes or No????

mountainofdebt

I would say - without your name being on the deeds - no.

The trouble is that you have given your brother - in good faith by accounts - money for the mortgage and bills on the assumption that when he come to sell the house, he would do the honourable thing and the trouble is, is that he isn't going to do the honourable thing.

Why did you take your name off the deeds btw? Surely you could have stayed on the deeds regardless?

meddy_2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

(If he also lived in the house, imho the OP can be considered to be a lodger,therefore it is not necessary to have a contract or rent book.)


If somebody lives in a house who's name is not on the title deeds it does not automatically make them a lodger.
The fact that they are related is irrelevant.