Deprivation of capital

blackmoorowner

Hi everyone,
Really need some advice on the best course of action. There is a lot going on so ill try an keep it short and to the point.
My partners Grandfather died around 7 years ago, he owned his house fully (bought from council) but didn't leave a will. His son carried on living in the house, without changing any deeds. My partners mother has lived in a council house with her husband for many years and are now both retired and receive housing benefit. The uncle has now moved to a care home, leaving the house which is in a really bad state of disrepair. Both the uncle and my partners parents want us to now own the home, as my partners mum and dad have no interest in moving. We have already started the process of probate to get the house into someone name.
Now here is the confusing part, what is the easiest way for the house to be in our name.
We can't afford to buy the house out fully, but can pay around 70% cash. If we bought the house for less than its worth, will deprivation of capital come into play?
Can we just sign the house over to our name in the process of probate and then gift the parents and uncle what we have agreed to pay?
Or is there any other way to do this that we haven't considered? Thanks!

Mojisola

blackmoorowner wrote: »

My partners Grandfather died around 7 years ago, he owned his house fully (bought from council) but didn't leave a will.

His son carried on living in the house, without changing any deeds.

The uncle has now moved to a care home, leaving the house which is in a really bad state of disrepair.

Both the uncle and my partners parents want us to now own the home. I'm sure they do but you can't just take someone else's home!

We have already started the process of probate to get the house into someone name. You mean into the uncles' name? He's the owner. (Edited: as their father died intestate, the owners are uncle and your OH's mother)

Now here is the confusing part, what is the easiest way for the house to be in our name. Buy it from the uncle (and his sister).

We can't afford to buy the house out fully, but can pay around 70% cash. If we bought the house for less than its worth, will deprivation of capital come into play?

Definitely...........

antrobus

blackmoorowner wrote: »

....We can't afford to buy the house out fully, but can pay around 70% cash. If we bought the house for less than its worth, will deprivation of capital come into play? ...

If grandfather died intestate, his children would have inherited an equal share of the property, so probate should have resulted in the property being re-registered in the names of the uncle and your partner's mother. Since uncle is in a care home, and partner's parents are claiming housing benefit, there is no avoiding deprivation of capital.

blackmoorowner wrote: »

....Can we just sign the house over to our name in the process of probate and then gift the parents and uncle what we have agreed to pay?.......

No. You have to follow the law.

xylophone

Your partner's grandfather died intestate. It seems that he was already a widower so that under the laws of intestacy, his children inherited his assets (which included the property) in equal shares.

It seems that there were two children, your partner's mother and his uncle (who continued to occupy the property after grandfather's death).

Should your mother have reported her half ownership of this property as she and your partner's father were in receipt of benefits?

Did your uncle leave a will or did he, too, die intestate?

If he left a will, to whom did he leave his half interest in the property?

Or is the position that he and your mother jointly owned the property so that your mother has inherited by survivorship?

Whichever may be the case, your mother will end up as sole owner?

If so, and as she is in receipt of benefits, DOC will need to be considered - it might anyway have needed to be considered even if she were not in receipt of benefits in view of the fact that she might at some stage have needed a care home place?

NYM

xylophone wrote: »

Your partner's grandfather died intestate. It seems that he was already a widower so that under the laws of intestacy, his children inherited his assets (which included the property) in equal shares.

It seems that there were two children, your partner's mother and his uncle (who continued to occupy the property after grandfather's death).

Should your mother have reported her half ownership of this property as she and your partner's father were in receipt of benefits?

Did your uncle leave a will or did he, too, die intestate?

If he left a will, to whom did he leave his half interest in the property?

Or is the position that he and your mother jointly owned the property so that your mother has inherited by survivorship?

Whichever may be the case, your mother will end up as sole owner?

If so, and as she is in receipt of benefits, DOC will need to be considered - it might anyway have needed to be considered even if she were not in receipt of benefits in view of the fact that she might at some stage have needed a care home place?

The uncle has now moved to a care home...

He may have to contribute to the fees...:)

TBagpuss

Yes, it would be seen as deprivation of capital if the house is sold to you at an undervalue.

Your mum may alredy have an issue if she did not declare her interest in the house when she claimed benefits.

the options are

- sell the house, split the proceeds between unle and mother. Mother may need to repay benefits if she recieved benefits she wasn't entitled to (depending on what she is claimin, and wen she inherited the hosue, this may not be an issue)

- Buy the house at full market value, split the money as above.

- If the hosue is transferred to you and you don't pay full market value now, then I think from the point of view of benefits your mum and uncle would be assessed as if they had recieved full market value. It may be that you could reach an agreement with them to 'top up' their benefits each weel / month with any shortfall generated as a result of the trnasfer at an undervalue, but obviusly how pracical taht would be would depend on your income and on the amount of the shortfall.

TELLIT01

xylophone wrote: »

Should your mother have reported her half ownership of this property as she and your partner's father were in receipt of benefits?

That's the alarm bell which started ringing for me too when I read the original post. That needs clearing up sooner rather than later.

Caz3121

potentially up to 7 years of overpayments !!!! hopefully the share of the property sale will be able to go to that

xylophone

He may have to contribute to the fees.

Apologies - mea culpa! I had just realised my error and come back to correct it.

So then, the OP's partner's mother and uncle inherited the property under the intestacy- presumably they became joint owners - I am assuming that positive steps would have had to be taken for them to be tenants in common but this would need to be checked.

The question still remains - should the OP's mother have reported that she had become the joint owner of a property if she was in receipt of benefits at that time or later when she started to receive benefits?

The uncle has now gone into care, so one assumes that as there seems to be no question of a spouse occupying the house, the expectation will be that the house should be sold and his share of the proceeds used to support his care.

The expectation would be that a market price (taking account of condition) should be paid for the property.

If the uncle/his sister accepted less than a market price then DoC would be a consideration for both of them, for him because of the need to pay the required amount of care home fees, and for the sister, firstly because of receipt of means tested benefits and secondly because she might herself at some point be in need of care.

NLW

NYM wrote: »

He may have to contribute to the fees...:)

That was my thought it is a asset and will be used to pay the care home fees.

If nobody was claiming benefits it is easy to change the deeds into anybodys name. It seems that as benefits have been claimed on all sides it was convenient to have the house registered in a dead relatives name.

Looks like the house will have to be sold at market value.

Mojisola

NLW wrote: »

That was my thought it is a asset and will be used to pay the care home fees.

If nobody was claiming benefits it is easy to change the deeds into anybodys name. It seems that as benefits have been claimed on all sides it was convenient to have the house registered in a dead relatives name.

Someone would still have to apply for Letters of Administration for Grandfather's estate to show they have the legal right to change the ownership.