Does this seem dodgy? House Sale

Okydoky25

BJV wrote: »

That's so sad. Why does money make people do such horrible things? It is now that he needs to be looked after not when he is gone.

Forgive me if I am wrong but I think what you are trying to say is that the company are trying to say the house was sold for a lesser amount so that they have to give less back to the owner. E.g sold house in 2015 for £200 they only give back £200 less equity release of £100 = £100 back to owner.

This would mean if the house was sold after the original sale they would not be responsible for the difference.

House sold for £340 ( so first sale never really happened ) they have to give back £240

Naughty, I can not understand why they would ever risk it? After all it is fraud. As other posts said which company is it.

Exactly what I think has happened. I cant see any other reason for his names still being on the transfer deeds when the 2nd sale went through.

Yes money does make nasty people even nastier. This so called next of Kin wanted nothing to do with him for 40 odd years but as far as the law and SS are concerned can now dictate his care. We have had all sorts of issues with her over this as she really does not have his best interest at heart and is causing him to be uncomfortable when there is no need but its like hitting your head against a brick wall getting someone to listen. I would love to go for POA but she insists she would fight it. She wont go for POA herself tho and the reason I think is because then she has the authority to release this cash to go towards his care. If it stays where it is it wont get spent and she inherits it as default.

teddysmum

Unless the gentleman has other means to pay for his care, surely the property is considered an asset which must be used to pay for the care and so the money from the sale cannot be retained by the emerging relative ?


Could you approach your MP , suggesting possible fraud concerning monies owed to the government ? (ie the equity release people have retained money that should have been given over to pay for care)

davidmcn

teddysmum wrote: »

Could you approach your MP , suggesting possible fraud concerning monies owed to the government ? (ie the equity release people have retained money that should have been given over to pay for care)

An MP is going to have no more power than the OP to see the contract. And I can't see there is even prima facie evidence of fraud having taken place.

konark

davidmcn wrote: »

An MP is going to have no more power than the OP to see the contract. And I can't see there is even prima facie evidence of fraud having taken place.

Other than a house that suddenly jumps in value and a relative that wants to stash the cash away from the authorities?