Advice for pensioner losing his home

Mojisola

ddebski_us wrote: »

A few years later, they remortgaged again, this time to release some equity to pay off the son's large gambling debts. This time, as the son was becoming a dad and was unable to contribute to the mortgage, they went for an interest only.

And, as uncle was over 60 and unable to go on the mortgage, solely in the son's name but uncle was paying the mortgage in full.

amnblog wrote: »

The reality is that your Uncle has £100,000 of asset which, if the property were sold would at least be safe from the son's lifestyle.

The house is solely-owned by his son.

The uncle might be able to claim some beneficial rights to a share of the property but would have to spend money on solicitors to get it.

amnblog

Mojisola wrote: »

The house is solely-owned by his son.

Well spotted - the Son owns it but Dad has been paying the interest on the lending.

molerat

amnblog wrote: »

Well spotted - the Son owns it but Dad has been paying the interest on the lending.

Which is of little comfort as he legally has £0 equity in the property there is a fair chance of incurring expensive legal costs to see any benefit from it.

amnblog

Dad and son's attempts to help each other have done the opposite.

lonestarfan

To buy a property as a buy to let for uncle you will need a deposit of at least 25% and it must be seen as money you have. I think that you will not be able to provide proof of deposit. You won't be able to show you've saved that money and it will be seen by the lender that its uncles money. Lenders won't like a property being in your name with money provided by the uncle and the uncle living in it. Thats because the uncle will be seen to have a beneficial interest in the property and if the lender ever has to repossess then it's will cause them problems. So that scuppers a BTL unless you can provide a 25% minimum deposit yourself. You also can't have a BTL and rent it to a relative. Is this man truely an uncle of your husband? If so then you can't have a BTL you would have to have a regulated BTL. The way the lender determines affordability for that is that you and your husband must be able to afford the two mortgages. That seems unlikely on the income/savings you've described. I think the best option is for him to rent.
If it weren't for the fact that the son is a gambler and has dubious morals then the better thing to do would be to find a way to assist the son to pay off his debts and keep uncle in the property but that's just not going to happen as it leaves the son on the mortgage. Are there any other younger family members who have the income and age and deposit to buy the property? I doubt it but thought I'd ask.

haras_nosirrah

What about using the cash if he gets any to pay cash on a shared ownership

He will then own the share outright so no landlord to make him move but has a reduced rent to pay

outofworksch

Two things come to mind, where does the son live, does he own his own property and has he sort help for his gambling addiction?

ddebski_us

Shared ownership is not a bad shout.

Son moved out 2 years ago and is renting in north east with his wife. Not getting any help with gamble afaik.

Coveredinbees!!!!

You can get retirement flats in slough for around 100K that's not far from heathrow.

outofworksch

Sorry but I feel the same thing will happen again regardless of what he buys unless the sons gambling is tackled in some way. Hope for uncle's sake it doesn't.