Lifetime Mortgage

Cham99

kingbess wrote: »

Raising money on mortgage free property
Is it ever possible for one joint tennant to raise money on property without the consent of the other?
Facts: £600k value, no mortgage, £80k required.
other tennant not lived in property for over 20 years (total 29years since first morgaged)
Sorry if this is wrong place but I cannot find NEW THREAD option

First, select your Forum as you like. Then go to the forum and look at the top left corner "New Thread" button.

Onlooker

A new provider,to us anyway,is advertising the fact that it expects to profit from the equity release market enough excess to give £3 million to a charity annually.The said is company called Age Co ,the charity is called Age UK.They who supposely look after people of a certain age and lack of financial nowhow whilst at the other end of the office they are promoting Lifetime Mortgages.It looks like indians circling the wagons .Are there any figures to show the affect on charities as a whole the diminished estates of people who have taken out Lifetime Mortgages Come on Esther let us know.

Onlooker

Just been messaged that we have been granted our 1st. badgeAn annual event it seems which made us take another look at the position we are in now.Raised £45,000 as of now we owe £72,625.00 and another 5 years this debt will increase to £98695.00 .All will have happened in just 15 years and will because of the ongoing effect of added to interest,or should we say Compouding Interest ,can double again in our Lifetime.Not a happy future .Look to alternatives rather than getting involved forever.

Onlooker

The greatest majority of people who sign up for Equity Release will be couples.The consequences of this would be that probably one would pass on before the other.This would leave the survivor alone to live with the effect of their borrowings on their estate.A diminishing effect on any value left and a big decision that they would have to make alone.Paying off the said Lifetime Mortgage early would entail a 25% early payment charge plus all the accrued interest.Would there even be enough monies then left to downsize maybe or will they have no option but to stay put.? Not a happy place to be.Consider

Onlooker

Reported in the newspapers that many homeowners are taking out Lifetime mortgages against their properties.One main reason is to support their siblings with gifts,many enough for a deposit on a home.Fair enough but what must be considered is Deprivation of Assets.This will mean that anytime in future years they have to apply for help with home care or even entering a care home their local authority will look to see if their assets have been deliberatley reduced.This can reduce any offer of financial help they may get and can go back any number of years.Consider.

ACG

Onlooker wrote: »

Reported in the newspapers that many homeowners are taking out Lifetime mortgages against their properties.One main reason is to support their siblings with gifts,many enough for a deposit on a home.Fair enough but what must be considered is Deprivation of Assets.This will mean that anytime in future years they have to apply for help with home care or even entering a care home their local authority will look to see if their assets have been deliberatley reduced.This can reduce any offer of financial help they may get and can go back any number of years.Consider.

Very easy to overcome this one...

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/social-care-and-support-where-to-start/paying-for-care-support/deprivation-of-assets/

When your council is deciding whether getting rid of property and money has been a deliberate deprivation of assets, they will consider two things:

- You must have known at the time you got rid of your property or money that you needed or may need care and support
- Avoiding paying for care must have been a significant reason for giving away your home or reducing your savings.

If the main reason was to give to kids as a deposit for a home, that overcomes point 2.

If they did not know at the time of arranging the Mortgage they would need care or support, that overcomes point 1.

Within 2 minutes of reading your post, I have found a link that counters your argument that you are obviously going to ignore because it does suit your blinkered view.

Next....

robatwork

You must have known at the time you got rid of your property or money that you needed or may need care and support

This is an interesting clause. I would think any adults who've been around the block and seen elderly relatives will all know that we MAY need care and support when we get old. Apart from those who die suddenly, we all will. So a council could argue that we all deprived assets even if we gave them away 20 years prior to needing a care home and at a time where we were healthy.

They go on to say

If you were fit and healthy, and could not have imagined needing care and support at the time, then it may not count as deprivation of assets.

All these "may" terms are woolly, and I wonder if there have been test cases in court of people trying to get back assets the LA have considered transferred to deprive long ago.

poppy10_2

ACG wrote: »

If the main reason was to give to kids as a deposit for a home, that overcomes point 2.

No it doesn't

What if the main reason was to give the kids a ferrari, or to buy them £80,000 of gold coins

ACG

This is something different to what I said. I was talking specifically about a house as onlooker gave that as an example in his post.

No it doesn't

What if the main reason was to give the kids a ferrari, or to buy them £80,000 of gold coins

kingstreet

There is no precedent on what constitutes "foreseeable need" but if a number of years have elapsed and health has deteriorated quickly, a claim for deprivation assets is less likely to succeed than a short time where there was an existing medical/health issue.