Parents home signed over to Sister

elsien

Has your mum been offered council accommodation yet, or is she still on the waiting list?

Person_one

Idiophreak wrote: »

...but she'll be receiving the subsidy associated with the council home she's occupying...

Council houses aren't subsidised. They can just seem that way because private rental price are overinflated in order to make a profit.

BitterAndTwisted

There is no "subsidy with the council home she's occupying". Rents might be "affordable" or below local market-rents but they're not subsidised unless the occupants receive Housing Benefit but similar is available to those in private rentals too if they qualify for it.

Local Authorities do not let at rates below what it costs to repair and maintain their properties or they would be taking funds out of other parts of their budgets to do so.

The OP's mother may not understand the principle of Deprivaton of Assets and if she is dependent on Housing Benefit to pay her rent, she will become acquainted with it ere long. Other than that, she can do with her house as she pleases. If she's disabled I daresay that the daughter who lived with her probably provided the majority of the care she required. Giving her the house under such circumstances doesn't appear to be that unfair on the face of it.

BitterAndTwisted

There could be any number of reasons why the OP's mother has done what she did. The fundamental issue is that no-one gets or is entitled to an inheritance until someone dies. Until then a person with assets can do as they wish. And the children are entitled to feel any way they wish, too. Doesn't make it right or fair but then life isn't fair and it would be foolish to expect it to be.

Family dynamics are funny things and not to be understood by outsiders. As I know only too well......

Mojisola

zippybungle wrote: »

I have recently found out that my Mum has signed over the house to my Sister, and my Mum will be moving into a council home (bungalow).

Have you asked your Mum why she has done this?

Idiophreak

Person_one wrote: »

Council houses aren't subsidised. They can just seem that way because private rental price are overinflated in order to make a profit.

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

There is no "subsidy with the council home she's occupying". Rents might be "affordable" or below local market-rents but they're not subsidised unless the occupants receive Housing Benefit but similar is available to those in private rentals too if they qualify for it.

Sorry, but this is very potato / po-ta-to.

The council could let the houses out at market value. It could use the money to tidy up the streets a bit more, give children a better standard of education, fix some of the 8 squillion pot holes on our roads or...just cut council tax.

Their decision to charge below market rates means they're effectively subsidising those tenants at the expense of other tax payers.

notechno

Idiophreak wrote: »

Sorry, but this is very potato / po-ta-to.

The council could let the houses out at market value. It could use the money to tidy up the streets a bit more, give children a better standard of education, fix some of the 8 squillion pot holes on our roads or...just cut council tax.

Their decision to charge below market rates means they're effectively subsidising those tenants at the expense of other tax payers.

If council services are based solely on what market value would fetch, where would you like it to end? Maybe the schools could be run privately, generating £10K per child each year. The town hall could be turned into a hotel. There could still be libraries but you'd have to buy the books instead. Maybe the council tax paid for the Police should finish too, and we could have local vigilantes.

Notwithstanding the fact that many council homes were built between the wars and have paid for themselves many times over by now.

Idiophreak

notechno wrote: »

If council services are based solely on what market value would fetch, where would you like it to end? Maybe the schools could be run privately, generating £10K per child each year. The town hall could be turned into a hotel. There could still be libraries but you'd have to buy the books instead. Maybe the council tax paid for the Police should finish too, and we could have local vigilantes.

Of course market value plays into all of these things. If the cost of state schooling wildly exceeded that of private schooling, people would have something to say about it. As it is, we agree to subsidise the costs of children's education (although this isn't a great example, as much of the funding comes from government) 100%, so it's free. Buses, we give some subsidies to, on a weird company by company, route by route basis. So it's *cheaper* for people to ride the bus than it would be if "market value" were charged. That's what a subsidy is, right...paying part of something so so someone else has to pay less.

Likewise, the council decides to give away a chunk of it's potential income in order to help people out with cheaper housing. Which is fair enough...As the council owns the houses (ignoring HAs etc), no money changes hands, but they're still providing a subsidy.

notechno wrote: »

Notwithstanding the fact that many council homes were built between the wars and have paid for themselves many times over by now.

Out of interest...how? If they don't charge more than the places cost to maintain, how have they paid for themselves several times over? I thought the council didn't profit from them?

Person_one

Idiophreak wrote: »

Sorry, but this is very potato / po-ta-to.

The council could let the houses out at market value. It could use the money to tidy up the streets a bit more, give children a better standard of education, fix some of the 8 squillion pot holes on our roads or...just cut council tax.

Their decision to charge below market rates means they're effectively subsidising those tenants at the expense of other tax payers.

The word 'subsidy' has a specific meaning that doesn't apply here. No subsidy is applied.

notechno

Out of interest...how? If they don't charge more than the places cost to maintain, how have they paid for themselves several times over? I thought the council didn't profit from them?[/QUOTE]

Council Housing en masse has been making a profit since 2008. Profits until 2012 were paid to the Treasury, and since 2012 councils have been self-financing.