Help with interpreting land registry entry please

Eliza_2

I've lived in my current rented house for many years and the landlady is elderly, not that I ever see her! As it's an old house I thought I'd while away some time this morning looking into its history. Having downloaded the title and plans from Land Registry I see that ownership passed to her daughter a couple of years ago - I had no idea. The daughter's address is shown as being where I know the landlady lives although I know they don't live together This was first registration.

I don't suppose that matters in itself but the value is shown as not more than £80k. The house is worth at least £200k if not more. Is there any reason that they would've put that value down? I'd love to buy it and could almost do so at £80k but not at £200k!! I'm also surprised the daughter hasn't tried to increase the rent, it's pretty cheap now and hasn't gone up for 15 yrs! However the trade off is that I pay for all repairs except for biggies such as new roof.

Would be grateful if anyone can shed any light on the value, how it has been decided, is it independently valued or does Land Registry accept the owner's word etc

Thanks.

PersianCatLady

I thought that the value was the last price that the property was sold for??

Perhaps it was a way for the mother to pass the house to the daughter legally, at a price she could afford, ensuring that the mother would have no money left to pay for her care in old age??

Who knows??

I cannot see how the previously sold price matters to you now and it certainly wouldn't mean that you could buy it for that price.

Eliza_2

PersianCatLady wrote: »

I thought that the value was the last price that the property was sold for??

Ah ok, I didn't realise that, thank you. I thought that perhaps the daughter had just picked a figure out of the air or some other reason for giving that price. I need to do some more digging then, as I do know it previously belonged to a large old estate, long gone as has the aristocratic family. Maybe my present landlady's ancestors bought it for £80 from the then Duke or something.

Many thanks for the response. More research needed obviously!

PersianCatLady

Eliza wrote: »

Ah ok, I didn't realise that, thank you. I thought that perhaps the daughter had just picked a figure out of the air or some other reason for giving that price. I need to do some more digging then, as I do know it previously belonged to a large old estate, long gone as has the aristocratic family. Maybe my present landlady's ancestors bought it for £80 from the then Duke or something.

Many thanks for the response. More research needed obviously!

I think (but don't know) that when the ownership passed to the daughter a couple of years ago, the mother must have received £80K from the daughter.

Now this bit is pure guessing but if the mother has spent the £80K and now needs to go into care then she has no money with which to pay for it, the house belongs to the daughter.

If the house was worth more then selling it "cheap" to a relative at least seven years before death would save money on IHT.

agrinnall

More importantly, as the property has been sold/transferred you have a new landlord. It doesn't sound like you were ever informed of this, and I suspect therefore that if you paid a deposit it may no longer be validly held.

PersianCatLady

agrinnall wrote: »

More importantly, as the property has been sold/transferred you have a new landlord. It doesn't sound like you were ever informed of this, and I suspect therefore that if you paid a deposit it may no longer be validly held.

Well spotted there, Agrinnall.

OP - The old lady is not your LL, the daughter is.

I am now wondering if the reason for the old lady supposedly being the LL is to do with tax???

Typhoon2000

Your land lord does not have to be the legal owner of the property to be your landlord. It is the person you have have the contract with, that’s all.

PersianCatLady

Typhoon2000 wrote: »

Your land lord does not have to be the legal owner of the property to be your landlord. It is the person you have have the contract with, that’s all.

Do you have a link for that at all??

If that is the case, what is to stop me renting out one property with me as LL and several others with each of my kids as LLs, whilst I am the legal owner of all of them, in order to minimise our overall income tax liability?

[Deleted User]

If you and children are over 18, nothing. it gets more complicated if they are under 18, but not impossible http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/wealthy-families-find-stamp-duty-loophole-to-buy-property-for-ch/

Eliza_2

Thanks all - very intriguing! This tenancy was started well before the current deposit rules were conceived and I have a receipt for it from way back then.

Having such an interesting time - the register refers to a conveyance/charge back in 1978 with the lord of the manor. Off to find out more about him!

PersianCatLady

deannatrois wrote: »

If you and children are over 18, nothing. it gets more complicated if they are under 18, but not impossible http://www.telegraph.co.uk/investing/buy-to-let/wealthy-families-find-stamp-duty-loophole-to-buy-property-for-ch/

The link is talking about when the property is bought through a trust so the trust is treated as the legal owner, not the parent or child.

There is no mention of a trust here so I am assuming that there isn't one.

The OP stated that ownership of the property passed to the daughter a couple of years ago, so the legal owner of the property is the daughter.