Debt ridden family from hell

ruggedtoast

I dont understand why this thread is still going on. If you don't want your mother in law to live with you, and you don't want her to live with them, then she will need to go into sheltered accommodation for which you need social services.

For everything else you need to seek, and pay for, legal advice from someone qualified to give it.

elsien

With regards to the money, it may also be that MIL has agreed to a third party mandate. This allows other people to take money from their account up to an agreed amount for specific things. My aunt, although she has full capacity and is well able to get out and about, did one for her kids to go to the bank for her because she can't be bothered doing it herself. All perfectly legal but less formal that a power of attorney.

elsien

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I dont understand why this thread is still going on. If you don't want your mother in law to live with you, and you don't want her to live with them, then she will need to go into sheltered accommodation for which you need social services.

If she has all her marbles and is capable of managing on her own (which it sounds like she is) then she doesn't necessarily need either sheltered accommodation or social services. And can live where she wishes unless there is a safeguarding concern. Which at the moment is less than clear.

Yorkshire_Midge wrote: »

However, the fact remains that even if the smokescreen hadn't been laid, MiL has said she'd have still done the same because they were in such a mess and at genuine risk of going bankrupt.

ruggedtoast

elsien wrote: »

If she has all her marbles and is capable of managing on her own (which it sounds like she is) then she doesn't necessarily need either sheltered accommodation or social services. And can live where she wishes unless there is a safeguarding concern. Which at the moment is less than clear.

Which makes all this conjecture even more pointless. If he thinks she is at risk then he needs social services. If she isn't at risk they will make that conclusion themselves.

All this pontificating over who said what to who when and why someone gave someone else's internet banking login to someone else and what they might have done in other circumstances.

rozeepozee

£140,000 seems like an awful lot of money to disappear over just 2 years. Have you any proof of how the money has been spent? If there is any evidence that it has been used to pay the mortgage or maintain the fabric of the property, she may be able to argue that she has an equitable interest in the property

Yorkshire_Midge

@Ruggedtoast - thanks, legal advice is in progress. This centres around what she thinks she wants - which at the moment, is the option we think is most risky for her of staying put and having extension built. But if that's what she sticks with, all we can do is try and make sure she gets the best advice possible to secure her position however dodgy it might be. We certainly haven't given up on the other options just yet either.


@Rozee - an awful lot for sure and you make a very good point. Equiv to half the value of their house pretty much. So that has been reflected in the material submitted for the solicitor to look over.


@Everyone - we're at the point where this now needs to run it's course, so many thanks again for the help and support and I'll post back when I know a bit more in a few days time on what the solicitor is thinking.

moneyistooshorttomention

Yorkshire Midge

Have you seen this one?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520036/Tax-penalty-families-granny-flat.html

That would impact on that family from hell if they actually were to add that promised annexe to their home.

....and we know who they would look to to make up the difference...:cool:

*Robin*

OP, have you come across "Granny Pods"?

http://www.grannyannexe.com/

Would one of those fit in your garden? From just over £44K for a unit 8 x 3.5mt - with the added advantage that it could be dismantled and sold when no longer required, so avoiding the Daily-Fail-pitfall story MiTStM has pointed out.

Yorkshire_Midge

@Moneyistooshort - big thanks for that one. Had no idea about that.


@Robin - I stumbled across the same site a week or so ago and we have that sort of thing on our options, along with some cheaper variants (which don't look as nice and professionally finished). You're right - it is a credible option for three reasons:


1. It would fit in the back garden
2. It's a fast and relatively mess free solution - though it looks like it needs planning if it is a self contained living space (as opposed to just a bedroom)
3. If they did build a proper extension on the house, it would be on the drive and quite narrow (1.9M wide internal) due to the nearest party wall. That's a very inefficient width when I've played about with the layout.




Anyway, we were in seeing the solicitor today so I'll report back when I've digested where we're up to!

Yorkshire_Midge

It's been some months now since I posted this, so just a quick note to advise what the outcome was, as we finally got there this week.

In summary, the debt ridden family from hell lived up to it and got even nastier, but ended up losing their house and having to pay MiL compensation from the equity (which ended up being slightly more than we'd calculated), and have now disappeared, probably for good given the outcome. MiL received enough compensation for us to be able to add to it without damaging our situation, and we got her a place near us which satisfied her requirement to remain independent. Everything is nicely tied up financially so they can't try the same trick again. Even though this really was BLATANT financial/elder abuse, we decided to go for compensation over prosecution as the latter would have been more difficult to prove and a lot more stressful for MiL.

So, a big thanks to everyone for their advice and thoughts, as this was a real shocker to deal with. If you'd like to know a bit more, read on as it took some twists and turns.....



All their talk of various solutions months ago was, it transpires, a complete sham - and as soon as they realised MiL had actually taken some legal advice which would be out of character for her, they just WENT for her - knowing full well she's very nervous of authority. Initially, solicitors letter giving her notice.

We responded with an intention to claim a right to stay and/or compensation under this principle which turned out to be highly relevant to what had happened to her.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_estoppel

Whilst a claim letter was being prepared and they knew it, they went a step further and applied for a court order to evict her, almost certainly thinking the pre-emptive strike would terrify her and cause her not to contest it and maybe not even file her claim.

Two points at this stage:

1. They went with the simplest of eviction cases as if getting rid of a lodger who hadn't paid rent, and didn't detail ANY of the background whatsoever.

2. MiL got so monumentally p*ssed off with daughter taking this to court, that rather than being frightened off, she just dug in like a trooper and refused to be bullied out until she finally got her settlement secured, some 8 MONTHS after they first started been awful to her.

What they didn't know is we'd employed on MiL's behalf the services of a specialist barrister in this principle to draft the claim letter and it was almost complete - so it was just turned into a full blown defense and counterclaim, against a case the courts would only normally expect to allocate a few minutes to hearing, and in fact had. I'd imagine they had one of life's "brown trouser" moments when that landed - as it contained details of a lot of very dodgy behaviour, as well as the details of the claim itself and the promises made. So it never even got to the initial hearing - it went for court directions, which were adjournment to try alternative dispute resolution (which the courts expect these days before you start taking matters to them), referral to high value/complex court process (known as multi-track), and having to submit a reply to the court to MiL's defence and counterclaim, which was going to start really costing them.

So basically, their stupid little court case grew arms and legs and ran off out of their control, leaving them extremely vulnerable.

Their reply when it arrived was packed full of lies, denials and false accusations, and was so laughably implausible, they wouldn't have had a hope of the judge believing it and evicting MiL. They could discontinue their eviction case, but that leaves them automatically liable for MiL's costs and back to square one - and having so alienated MiL that all other previously discussed solutions were off the table.

They ended up settling out-of-court at mediation a few weeks later - with the immediate sale of their house being captured in the terms of the settlement. So I guess they will be somewhere around here paying the terribly high rents and wondering why on earth they didn't just honour the promises they made.