We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Retired parents renting their house from me and cannot afford to pay
Comments
-
How convenient that the *rent* his parents have been paying is just below the threshold....:whistle:
Losses from uncommercial lets.....
You can’t use any excess expenses in a later tax year, even if you subsequently start charging commercial rent in that tax year.
It is £2,500 after allowable expenses (Including mortgage interest)
The fact the loss is from an uncommercial let and cannot be carried forward and offset against future profits then means that there is no benefit to reporting the loss.But there was another available option - to sell the house and keep the £75k for themselves. Instead, they chose to give that money away.
It doesn't matter, there is another option to saving your child's house from being repossessed, they could see the house, or you could let them move in with you, they could choose not to give the money away.
The intention was not to give money away to claim benefits - that is all that is relevant,
Why they chose the option of giving part of the house away instead of selling is their business, as long as it wasn't to claim benefits/avoid fees.I wish I had your patience when dealing with idiots. :A
The OP has tried his best to help his parents and save the family home from repossession and from what I understand has done this with the best of intentions and has got mostly scathing comments on this thread.
I think it is wonderful that an adult child wants to help his ageing parents stay in their home, and his efforts should be applauded not ridiculed.0 -
The simple solution would be let them try and claim LHA. If they do get anything, it's highly unlikely to be the 'going rate of £1000' they may get the one bedroom rate but they will only receive HB if it is a commercial arrangement. After 5 years of not paying *rent* in the same property to the same *Landlord* it's going to be difficult to argue the point.0
-
Tammykitty wrote: »No, because 5 years ago when the give away the equity, they didn't forsee that their son would start charging them rent because he couldn't afford the mortgage, and didn't forsee that they wouldn't be able to give their son £200 a month.
Do you have a crystal ball that helps you see 5 years into the future?
I may not have a crystal ball but at least I can read.:D
The OP has been charging them rent from the start, it's only recently that they haven't been able to afford it.0 -
Tammykitty wrote: »I think it is wonderful that an adult child wants to help his ageing parents stay in their home, and his efforts should be applauded not ridiculed.
I completely agree with the sentiment that it is wonderful that the OP wants to help their parents stay in their home. If he were able to do this that would be great. (and I genuinely don't think anyone has ridiculed - they have perhaps disagreed)
The problem comes when Joe Public has to help his parents stay in their home - after they have given away tens of thousands of pounds of equity. Many of these Joe and Joanna Public have never had and will never have the sums of money that the OPs parents have given away. They work to pay their own rent and their taxes will be used to pay the rent of the OPs parents because they chose to give their own money away.
Tlc0 -
Tammykitty wrote: »It is £2,500 after allowable expenses (Including mortgage interest)
The fact the loss is from an uncommercial let and cannot be carried forward and offset against future profits then means that there is no benefit to reporting the loss.
It doesn't matter, there is another option to saving your child's house from being repossessed, they could see the house, or you could let them move in with you, they could choose not to give the money away.
The intention was not to give money away to claim benefits - that is all that is relevant,
Why they chose the option of giving part of the house away instead of selling is their business, as long as it wasn't to claim benefits/avoid fees.
The OP has tried his best to help his parents and save the family home from repossession and from what I understand has done this with the best of intentions and has got mostly scathing comments on this thread.
I think it is wonderful that an adult child wants to help his ageing parents stay in their home, and his efforts should be applauded not ridiculed.
You seem to have missed the point that they gave him £75k which rather takes the edge off his generosity for many of us.0 -
Tammykitty wrote: »The OP has tried his best to help his parents and save the family home from repossession and from what I understand has done this with the best of intentions and has got mostly scathing comments on this thread.
It may have been done with the best of intentions but it clearly wasn't the best decision. It would have sorted the problem once and for all if the parents had sold up.
The current situation is causing problems for the parents and their son and his family.0 -
Except that is only half of the picture, isn't it?Tammykitty wrote: »I think it is wonderful that an adult child wants to help his ageing parents stay in their home, and his efforts should be applauded not ridiculed.
The parents have knowingly deprived themselves of £75,000 in assets and - as a result - are heavily in debt and requiring money from the taxpayer to help their son pay the mortgage on his second property.0 -
Except that is only half of the picture, isn't it?
The parents have knowingly deprived themselves of £75,000 in assets and - as a result - are heavily in debt and requiring money from the taxpayer to help their son pay the mortgage on his second property.
How many people on here complaining have been had parents help the with deposits for houses, have had parents pay for their wedding etc - should all these be counted as deprivation of capital in the future - even if its 40 years later?
Yes the OP has been given a gift of £75,000, but as he is paying £700 a month, I am guessing the mortgage he has is about £150k.
The son has taken on £150k of debt he didn't need too and paying this mortgage will actually cost £210k (depending on rates etc), so he isn't actually making much (if anything) from this deal - he gets a house worth £225k for £210k - its not that much. (And the parents are not currently paying rent)
Hindsight is a wonderful thing, and with the benefit of hindsight, the OP may not have done the same thing.
The intention was never to rely on the public purse, and as has been said, his parents are unlikely to get housing benefit, so won't be relying on the public purse.
The OP has now stretched himself further with a longer term mortgage so that his parents get to stay in their family home.0 -
Tammykitty wrote: »How many people on here complaining have been had parents help the with deposits for houses, have had parents pay for their wedding etc - should all these be counted as deprivation of capital in the future
To the extent that they've left themselves in debt and are now relying on benefits?even if its 40 years later?
Which this isn't. It's five years.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards