Father places Charging Order on My Property

Hoploz

If it is an application to put a charge on the property then you need to respond if you dispute it. This happened to us when a rogue business partner forged a signature and we ended up with a letter saying a company wanted to put a charge on our home. In our case I think there had been a CCJ applied which we knew nothing about until the charge letter. We responded to the land registry, and explained the situation and it was removed.

Jhoney_2

Ok, so there is an element of vexation on his part but also a reasonable desire not to see a stranger benefit from his hard gotten gains. Whatever the rights or wrongs of that view, that's how he sees it - and that his choice.

I think the fact that there is a sibling makes the whole thing a lot more complicated in terms of IHT etc though... but I don't have any knowledge in that area, sorry.....

PS Is there a break clause to your house rental? Are you even comfortable with moving back there given how things are?

Carol1604

I can't move back to my own home now as I've committed to rent where I am now 12mths. I would have to check on a break clause but it seems ridiculous that now I'll have to pay tax on rental income when I'm now renting myself. All got a bit expensive. Silly me.

Jhoney_2

Do you have one at your own house with the tenants of 5/6 weeks? I believe it usually after 6months but again I have no knowledge of this area.

My thinking is that at least something within your control can be used as a timeline for a change of circumstances.

Check both what you signed as a tenant and also what you had your own tenants sign as a LL.

getmore4less

I am not getting the time line.

These things don't happen overnight.

1.when did things start getting difficult
2.when did you move out and rent.
3.when did you start the new tenancy.

from the psoist so far it would seem that 2 was before or very close to 3, indicating that 1 was almost certainly before 3.

Why on earth did you not let the tenancy on you house go periodic rather than do another 12 months?

moneyistooshorttomention

Hoploz wrote: »

That makes more sense. It's not that he is such a horrible grumpy old man who doesn't want you to be happy, it's because he doesn't want to hand over half of the property to someone else in the case of a divorce later. I can understand that, although it's a case of repenting at leisure as he realises its a real possibility.

Understandable - put like that. It's not against you - its against any man hoping to profit from you iyswim.

One of the first things my father said when I bought my first house was that I needed to protect myself from any man ever nicking any of my hard-won "house equity". I could easily translate that into - if it had been his hard-won equity and he had given it to me to benefit me = he wouldnt want some stranger getting their hands on it. I quite agree.

I have a married couple of very sweet nature as very good friends and I know they have spent many years anticipating one of their sons might end up divorced from his wife at some point and carefully working out their will to make sure that he personally inherits his "share" of their "estate" come the time and she (the wife) couldnt manage to get any of it if it came to it. I tend to agree with them that I think such a divorce is likely at some point - and can fully understand why they wish to protect their sons inheritance from this (if it happens) and make sure that the people they leave it to (ie their sons) are the people that get the benefit of it. I can see exactly where they are coming from on this. From where I'm standing - I would lay odds that one son will never get divorced and the other one will at some point from what I can see.

From this - is there any way you could persuade him to lift that charge and instead substitute an absolute cast iron guarantee that no man (this one or otherwise) could ever get his hands on your fathers "capital"?? There must be some way somehow (within the law) that one can leave money to a person and guarantee some other person couldnt manage to get their hands on it ever "if"...

The wealthy work these things out somehow to make sure assets remain intact - bar the Government stepping in with "death duties" (which is a whole other topic). So surely there must be some way us ordinary-people-in-the-street can take a leaf out of their book and protect our assets?

Carol1604

Things started to become difficult last November but I remained until mid April when I found my own rental property when it was obvious I could no longer cope with the situation. The renewed tenancy started Jan this year for another 12 months. The letting agents said it would be better to give an extension of 12 month as they were tenants that caused no problems.

Carol1604

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Understandable - put like that. It's not against you - its against any man hoping to profit from you iyswim.

One of the first things my father said when I bought my first house was that I needed to protect myself from any man ever nicking any of my hard-won "house equity". I could easily translate that into - if it had been his hard-won equity and he had given it to me to benefit me = he wouldnt want some stranger getting their hands on it. I quite agree.

I have a married couple of very sweet nature as very good friends and I know they have spent many years anticipating one of their sons might end up divorced from his wife at some point and carefully working out their will to make sure that he personally inherits his "share" of their "estate" come the time and she (the wife) couldnt manage to get any of it if it came to it. I tend to agree with them that I think such a divorce is likely at some point - and can fully understand why they wish to protect their sons inheritance from this (if it happens) and make sure that the people they leave it to (ie their sons) are the people that get the benefit of it. I can see exactly where they are coming from on this. From where I'm standing - I would lay odds that one son will never get divorced and the other one will at some point from what I can see.

From this - is there any way you could persuade him to lift that charge and instead substitute an absolute cast iron guarantee that no man (this one or otherwise) could ever get his hands on your fathers "capital"?? There must be some way somehow (within the law) that one can leave money to a person and guarantee some other person couldnt manage to get their hands on it ever "if"...

The wealthy work these things out somehow to make sure assets remain intact - bar the Government stepping in with "death duties" (which is a whole other topic). So surely there must be some way us ordinary-people-in-the-street can take a leaf out of their book and protect our assets?

If my father had sat down and talked to me about things that would have been fine and I would have told him I was not interested in a relationship that was much more than friends. I was happy with that. His objection was that I was seeing someone - a friend and not devoting all my time to him and him alone. I have my own house and owe almost nothing on it. I'm almost 60 and been there years. My friend also had his own house that was bought and paid for. He was just retired and received a good pension.

As an adult at my age, I would have thought I was entitled to have friends, both men and women and my father never got neglected and he's well capable of looking after himself. He was lonely and missed my mother and that's how all this came about in the first place.

After Mum died and I offered him to stay with me, I made it clear that it would only work if he realized that I did have a life of my own. I wanted to be there for him for emotional support.

FBaby

I don't know what is the point of you going on about your father's decision to get his money back having anything to do with you having a boyfriend. It's got nothing to do with it but with the fact that he is worried that as you moved out and get into a relationship, they could start to influence you and decide to kick him out of the house, or then indeed get married and divorced and lose half of it.

It was a big mistake on his part to put it in your name only in the first place. He just realised this when he realised that all the above was a possibility. I'm very surprised that as a result of this realisation, he didn't ask you to gift the house back to him. Or did and you refused and that's why he decided to go to court? Has the case actually gone to court and the restriction been granted? If so for what amount was he granted.

As said earlier, he would need to convince a judge that you owe him the money and I'm even wondering whether he would need to show that he has tried to claim it back. It's all very odd!

moneyistooshorttomention

I know...I know that at our age (yep...I'm in early 60s) we tend to assume that no-one could ever catch us out again. That being that we've been there/done that re not realising.

I suspect you may be very like me in one respect - ie not thinking anyone would hurt you in any way (eg by trying to get money out of you that they arent due for) because WE wouldnt do a thing like that.

But...even people in our agegroup can sometimes not quite "see things coming" sometimes. For instance - I've certainly witnessed a friend in my agegroup get persuaded into marrying an older man that got dementia pretty much the second they were safely married and she landed up being a "carer", rather than a "wife". I still swear her husband knew thats how it would be at some level:cool:

So - can you see how your father might still wonder if such a thing as a "woman being married for the wrong reasons (in this case = her money)" might happen even at our age?

He might honestly, in his own mind, still be protecting "his little girl". It's what (some) fathers do and they don't give that up no matter how old we get:rotfl: