Legal Charge

noh

I don't understand the benefits position.
At present she owns 25% of a house that she doesn't live in worth £47500. This should already be treated as an asset of hers when deciding benefits payable.
Transferring the ownership with a legal charge won't change the benefits position as she will still have an asset in the form of a loan to the brother of £47500.

Miroslav

noh wrote: »

I don't understand the benefits position.
At present she owns 25% of a house that she doesn't live in worth £47500. This should already be treated as an asset of hers when deciding benefits payable.
Transferring the ownership with a legal charge won't change the benefits position as she will still have an asset in the form of a loan to the brother of £47500.

She doesn't own 25% - the mother owns 100%.

The mother wants to sell the house and divide the money four ways, however Brother 1 wants the house and therefore has come up with the idea he can live in it and the other 3 have 25% (£47,500) in the form of a legal charge.

At this moment, the house is still 100% owned by the mother until the legal charge is signed and executed or the house is sold and the money handed out.

[Deleted User]

Surely you would still get benefits if you owned a share in a property, at the end of the day you don't have the liquid assets to live on. Might be different if you own multiple of properties of course.

I was living in a house I inherited 50% of and then later I was on JSA for a few months when I lost a job. I wasn't made to sell my share of the property. That would just be absurd.

vanilla_twist

Most solicitors do a free half hour consultation for new customers. I suggest your friend rings round and gets an appointment.

The letter says £47500 or 25% it can't be both!
A 25% charge would go up in value as the house does a £47500 charge effectively devalues as the £ does.

Sounds to me that son 1 wants to make a few quid doing the house up to sell or live in and being mortgage free.

On the subject of benefits if your friend agrees she will be intentionally depriving herself of this asset so it will be counted as capital by the dwp. If she has the money as an inheritance she has 6 months to use it to buy property herself, pay off an existing mortgage or buy the things she needs like a sensible priced car, white goods and furniture. Also a reasonably priced holiday for herself before it is counted as deprivation of capital.
Unfortunately the dwp do not understand this aspect well and will take 3-4 months investigating while stopping your friends income based benefit.

First stop a solicitor on a free consultation and it sounds like a stern letter will discourage son 1 and house can be sold. Ok it might make a bit less but the whole ugly thing will be over with.

V x

Penelope_Penguin

Deleted_User wrote: »

Surely you would still get benefits if you owned a share in a property, at the end of the day you don't have the liquid assets to live on. Might be different if you own multiple of properties of course.

I was living in a house I inherited 50% of and then later I was on JSA for a few months when I lost a job. I wasn't made to sell my share of the property. That would just be absurd.

Difference is, that you were living in the property. Property you own, but don't live in, is treated as an asset.

Miroslav

vanilla_twist wrote: »

Most solicitors do a free half hour consultation for new customers. I suggest your friend rings round and gets an appointment.

The letter says £47500 or 25% it can't be both!
A 25% charge would go up in value as the house does a £47500 charge effectively devalues as the £ does.

Sounds to me that son 1 wants to make a few quid doing the house up to sell or live in and being mortgage free.

On the subject of benefits if your friend agrees she will be intentionally depriving herself of this asset so it will be counted as capital by the dwp. If she has the money as an inheritance she has 6 months to use it to buy property herself, pay off an existing mortgage or buy the things she needs like a sensible priced car, white goods and furniture. Also a reasonably priced holiday for herself before it is counted as deprivation of capital.
Unfortunately the dwp do not understand this aspect well and will take 3-4 months investigating while stopping your friends income based benefit.

First stop a solicitor on a free consultation and it sounds like a stern letter will discourage son 1 and house can be sold. Ok it might make a bit less but the whole ugly thing will be over with.

V x

She has a friend helping her search for a solicitor. Hopefully they can find one.

It's £47,500. The house is just being split between 4 people. and £47,500 is the figure someone has come up with for each person.

It's not an inheritance. Father died, left mother the house and upon her death it will be split 3 ways, but she has decided to sell now and split the money 4 ways now - at least that was the original plan.

Mokka

OP got some excellent advice, there are some things that worry me though:
-did the father leave a will? If not, can the mother say the house is hers anyway and do as she likes- divide it between 3 family members instead of 4? So if the sister doesn't want her 25% charge she will get nothing?
-if the sister agrees to the charge, and does what her family want, can DWP (providing there is a way for DWP to find out about this) force the sale of the house to get back the benefits at some point in the future?

Miroslav

Mokka wrote: »

OP got some excellent advice, there are some things that worry me though:
-did the father leave a will? If not, can the mother say the house is hers anyway and do as she likes- divide it between 3 family members instead of 4? So if the sister doesn't want her 25% charge she will get nothing?
-if the sister agrees to the charge, and does what her family want, can DWP (providing there is a way for DWP to find out about this) force the sale of the house to get back the benefits at some point in the future?

I'm told he left a will detailing that the mother has the house until death or until she vacates at which point any profits from a sale must be split four ways. Whether that's fact I don't know as I now discover Brother 1 and Brother 2 are dodgy, as was father. Their is another brother too who got involved last time their was money around but father was still alive all those years ago and I assume father then wrote him out of the will for the house (Brother 3 we shall call him took father to court and lost - Brother 3 is not Mother's child and has never lived in this house)

I'm not sure DWP have powers to force house sales? Especially if 2 of the 4 (mother I assume has pension) are not on benefits, but they will have powers to recover money I'm sure.

I've been given the papers for the next day or two, so i'm sending the email shortly as she stopped me before but is now letting me do it (until she changes her mind again, so i'd better do it before she pops around tonight!)

zebulon

Miroslav wrote: »

I
Having taken advice I am informed that due to being on benefits, any acceptance would be deemed as deprivation of assets and I would lose my entitlement to benefits because it will be treated as myself having savings of £47,500, thus having no money to live on , so I would require the money from any sale of the house , and as their is no date on the transfer or legal charge, this money may never be forthcoming.

I'm rubbish at letters too
I think the start is good but I think this part is not needed. She doesn't owe any lengthy explanation as to why she does not agree with the charge.

Miroslav

zebulon wrote: »

I'm rubbish at letters too
I think the start is good but I think this part is not needed. She doesn't owe any lengthy explanation as to why she does not agree with the charge.

I think I was only adding that so it didn't sound too harsh and to try and make the brother and wife understand the position they would be putting the sister in.