Advice on eviction

The_Negotiator

BigAunty wrote: »

Actually, that's a great suggestion that the OP should explore - can she sell the property to a professional landlord with her parents in situ and have the new landlord take them on as tenants?

There's no way a professional landlord would take on tenants for the rest of their natural life who won't pay a penny so they'd either have to evict them or get them to sign up for a standard AST.

That would create a liability for rent under the new ownership, and therefore perhaps they could get HB (if they aren't held to deprivation of capital by the local council over that 150k hit on the house).

The OP might not be able to sell it at market rates to a professional landlord as generally they will be seeking a good mark up between mortgage costs and rental. I wonder if the OP could tempt a professional landlord to take the risk of having obstructive tenants that they have to evict by offering the 190k value house at a discount, enough to cover the mortgage and selling fees?

Not sure many landlords would be tempted by the scenario that the OP outlines of tenants that feel they shouldn't have to pay rent. I imagine most landlords would prefer vacant possession but if they did have the appetite to secure a £190k property for around £155k for the loss of few months rent during the eviction process, then perhaps that's possible.

That way she passes on the hassle to another landlord and it is them that evict her parents if they won't pay.

There are also 'we buy your house for cash' merchants. They are notorious, however, for offering a pittance and then dropping the price even more at the 11th hour because they know the sellers are desperate. This could result in negative equity for the OP but the debt might be manageable. Again, the sticking point might be that they require vacant possession.

The Shelter website details a 'mortgage rescue' scheme but I assume its only for owner occupiers but it might be worth the OP contacting the relevant scheme reps to check this. This is where a social housing landlord buys a property and lets the owner live there as a tenant but there are lots of conditions and I'd be surprised if this operates on a buy to let scenario.

I don't see how the above could work - the OP remains liable to the contract regardless.

Carer

Alternative suggestion:
As the house is yours, why not rent out the 2 spare rooms in the house to lodgers and therefore cover the majority of the mortgage.
Parents have no choice who lives there with them as it's not their house.
I'm sure a few months of living with strangers will change their minds about allowing the sale.
I'm sure if you gave them the option of lodgers or selling they might suddenly decide to do the right thing.

BigAunty

The_Negotiator wrote: »

If the parents were in their 80s then the OP could have been quids in (they are still coming out on top as it is).

Well, if they both die before the mortgage term (I assume there's 20 years left of a 25 year mortgage term but I'm just guessing). The mother is 65 and might have another 35 years in her!

Not sure why the OP didn't consider this when signing the rent free agreement but I guess her father's suicide attempt and her young age made her vulnerable to pressure and not very wise about the risks.

But it seems the OP has been struggling financially for years, managing to secure the parents dream of rent free living in a luxury place but incapable of escaping the rent trap and debt herself, so her dream was not realised.

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

BigAunty wrote: »

She very well may not have the right. She may very well be morally obligated, if not emotionally compelled to honour their agreement. The agreement may be legally binding (the solicitor thinks so).

But if she can't afford to and they won't contribute, then its homelessness for the parents and debt for the daughter, agreement or no agreement. The agreement isn't worth the paper its written on if the OP cannot find £700 per month for the next 20 or so years.

The reality is that the 50k released to the OP with the expectation that it would be a deposit for her next property has largely been completely spent back on her parents. At best, she got use of a decent car for a bit before deciding she couldn't afford to run it and then sold it for a smaller motor.

She does potentially get some financial return if she manages to service the mortgage and both her parents die but there's equally the risk that the responsibility literally bankrupts her.

I see you do accept it to a point. The 50K however was nothing to do with the parents. It was effectively just a bank loan the OP took out for herself. She could have borrowed just the 100K. And the 50K, together with any other mortgage payments, has not been "spent on the parents", it has increased the equity on the house that the OP owns.

The 50K is NOT part of her gain from the deal, that 150K gain is all in the equity of the house. So what she did with it is irrelevant. In fact, it looks like she has taken out a 50K loan and used it to partly repay the same 50K loan.

BigAunty

The_Negotiator wrote: »

I don't see how the above could work - the OP remains liable to the contract regardless.

Quite possibly you are right.

It remains to be seen whether the contract trumps the owners right to sell as at the end of the day they are excluded occupiers.

Also

- if they can scupper any proposed sale by taking her to court before the sale process concludes
- if they can even afford to mount a legal claim against her
- how they could manage to enforce a claim against their daughter who has limited income and no capital

Lots of ifs

Personally, I wonder if the OP shouldn't test the solictors advice and issue an S21 for eviction. It's known as a no fault notice. There's no defence to it by the occupants. If served correctly, the judge has no discretion and must award possession to the landlord. It doesn't cost much for a landlord to issue an S21 (though perhaps the OP is better off leaving it to a professional like her solictor or Landlord Action).

Admittedly, I only have that general grasp of an S21 but I'm really not sure that rent free agreement will stop the judge from awarding possession - perhaps the judge would just tell her parents that they must address the terms of that notice through a separate civil claim? I'm just musing but its not like they are secure/assured tenants with security of tenure in law and the eviction process can be quite cheap. It will certainly send a message to the parents who I am sure will also not hear it, even if the action fails.

As far as I am concerned, her relationship with her parents has irretrievably and permanently broken down and I'd be surprised if it ever recovers, just on past history, not the nasty stuff that might come. She should forget about being nicey, nicey - its her family or her parents, that's her ultimate choice. Her parents prize their lifestyle over financial realism, taking rather too much comfort from a bit of paper that was hastily scribbled before anyone did the sums or the risk management.

The_Negotiator

BigAunty wrote: »

Well, if they both die before the mortgage term (I assume there's 20 years left of a 25 year mortgage term but I'm just guessing). The mother is 65 and might have another 35 years in her!

Not sure why the OP didn't consider this when signing the rent free agreement but I guess her father's suicide attempt and her young age made her vulnerable to pressure and not very wise about the risks.

But it seems the OP has been struggling financially for years, managing to secure the parents dream of rent free living in a luxury place but incapable of escaping the rent trap and debt herself, so her dream was not realised.

Or they thought a 250k house for £150k sounded like a nice deal, especially when you get to have £50k in your pocket to buy a nice new car and so on.

The image of these parents living "a life of luxury" is a little strange - they gave away their house for 2/5 of its value in exchange for rent free living - £250k doesn't really buy you a luxury house!

ScorpiondeRooftrouser

I have little doubt that if the parents were on here saying "We sold our 250K house to our daughter for 100K as long as she let us stay here rent free and now she wants to evict us; we have nowhere to go", people would be saying how dreadful the daughter was.

BigAunty

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

I see you do accept it to a point. The 50K however was nothing to do with the parents. It was effectively just a bank loan the OP took out for herself. She could have borrowed just the 100K. And the 50K, together with any other mortgage payments, has not been "spent on the parents", it has increased the equity on the house that the OP owns.

.

The parents evidentally consented to the 50k given to the OP.

Looks like the original valuation was extremely optimistic and the property has actually reduced in value from its original totally b*u*l*l*s*h*t valuation of 250k to around 190k, that's a dip of 60k albeit this could change in the future and there is approx 40k equity there now (excluding costs) but this will go down the s*h*i*t*t*e*r when its repossessed.

If her parents understood the reality of the situation, they would be doing things like offering to cancel that rent free agreement, contributing towards the mortgage, downsizing, agreeing to sell the property, seeing if they could submit a valid HB claim, applying to the local council as homeless due to the future repossession of the property.

Instead they are waving a piece of paper at their daughter who can't afford school shoes for her children, one that is now worthless due to impending repossession when they could have walked away with 30k plus equity and realised that she gave them 5 years of rent free accommodation and an opportunity to pay off their debts when realistically, before this, they would have lost their home to their debts.

No doubt they wanted a lifetime of free rent but the fact is all their daughter has managed to do after their lifetime of lifestyle debt and witless spending is give them a stay of execution for the inevitable. Their behaviour has equally led to this, not just the daughter - it is clear they don't care that she cannot afford to support them, they still have that lack of pragmatism, and they couldn't care less that her family is suffering through a contract that could never realisticaslly be fulfilled.

BigAunty

The_Negotiator wrote: »

The image of these parents living "a life of luxury" is a little strange - they gave away their house for 2/5 of its value in exchange for rent free living - £250k doesn't really buy you a luxury house!

They are living in a property with 2 spare bedrooms while ordering her daughter to live in smaller rental properties to continue to afford this. It was purchased at a fraction of its worth but it is their fault that they owed creditors so much money.

She bought the property at the maximum that she could get a loan for because they racked up debts and put the onus on her to resolve it for them rather than change their behaviour or expectations.

The OP has not received any great benefit from this deal other than temporary use of a decent car and at significant detriment to herself and her family, who have a poorer standard of living as a result of it. Obviously, the OP hoped to achieve something out of it in the long run but both parties didn't do sufficient financial and risk planning to know that it was unsustainable.

Rocky99

I have served a s21 on them, expires 1st feb?

It is a nice house and they were more than adamant they wanted to live there no other options. I did suggest that they could sell up and pay there debts off whilst still being able to buy a nice smaller house. This was laughed at, apparently my dad had spent too much time and effort and money on the garden. They had the option to pay off that debt when they sold their previous house which they brought for £40000 in 1984 and sold mortgage free for £230000. The brought the one I own for £190000 about 6/7 yrs ago, god knows where that £40000 went, it was none of my business then so didn't ask.

They wanted to live in THAT house no matter what.