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.
We're aware that dates on the Forum are not currently showing correctly. Please bear with us while we get this fixed, and see Site feedback for updates.
MSE News: Warning - if the state helps pay your...
Comments
-
-
Callum_Jones wrote: »You may.
We have c. 3 years to run on our mortgage, it finishes on my 65th birthday, which was when I expected to retire (and my income to fall).
That was a well thought out plan. In my case I consistently overpaid our mortgage by a few £'s a week. This shortened the term from 25 years to 20 years so that I had the option to retire early at 55.0 -
That was a well thought out plan. In my case I consistently overpaid our mortgage by a few £'s a week. This shortened the term from 25 years to 20 years so that I had the option to retire early at 55.0
-
Robbydabanca wrote: »In this instance, this does not need bumped. I have noted that you close various threads. If this subject needs discussed, new ones will be opened.
I rarely close threads, only doing so to keep the forum running as it should or where the rules are broken.
Please feel free to start new threads as and when you see the need/ have a problem. But remember this forum is here to help people who have problems with benefits NOT to discuss the rights and wrongs of the system, if that is what you want to do use Discussion Time (at the very bottom of the forum list).:money:0 -
MSE_Callum wrote: »More than 90% of homeowners who are part of the Support for Mortgage Interest scheme face losing up to £5,000 a year within weeks when the benefit is replaced by a loan - if you're affected, you must act NOW...Read the full story:
'Warning - if the state helps pay your mortgage interest, act now or it'll be stopped'
Click reply below to discuss.But remember this forum is here to help people who have problems with benefits NOT to discuss the rights and wrongs of the system, if that is what you want to do use Discussion Time (at the very bottom of the forum list).:money:
Perhaps we will never know.0 -
As a UK citizen living abroad, where government help for unemployed, disabled etc is almost non existant, I find it incredible that this has not been done before.
The home owners are protected for life as the charge only kicks in when their house is sold. So the owner can stay in their home, which is a good thing, I wouldn't want people to be forced to sell up to pay back the money.
So it is not the homeowner that pays the loan back, it's the heirs.
So why should children/heirs get the full benefit of inheriting a property that has been subsidized by the taxpayer.
I know of a woman who hasn't worked a day in her life, she is divorced, now her house is paid for (while claiming) she now gets her pension.
Now her 3 sons will inherit a property that their mother leaves them, partly/funded by the taxpayer, who in many cases cannot afford to buy their own property.
That seems unjust to me, why should a hardworker pay, through taxes etc, for heirs to get a bit lump sum when the property is sold after the death of the claimant.
Wrong on all levels.
Of course the claimant should be helped while alive, but the heirs should not.
I agree with Help from cradle to the grave, but not with preserving the assets for future generations, that is a priveledge that is only for people who prospered from their own efforts and not from handouts.0 -
justmeonlyme wrote: »
The home owners are protected for life as the charge only kicks in when their house is sold. So the owner can stay in their home, which is a good thing, I wouldn't want people to be forced to sell up to pay back the money.
That seems unjust to me, why should a hardworker pay, through taxes etc, for heirs to get a bit lump sum when the property is sold after the death of the claimant.
I agree with Help from cradle to the grave, but not with preserving the assets for future generations, that is a priveledge that is only for people who prospered from their own efforts and not from handouts.
The debt is not just recovered on the sale of the property, it is recovered also if the property or part of it is transferred.
Many mortgages were taken out in the name of the breadwinner only. The spouse would not feature on the mortgage or even the deeds. At some time later if there is a transfer to joint names that will trigger the repayment. There hasn't been a sale and no monies have been received - who should pay the debt?
I have no objection to the portion of equity that relates to the period when the benefit/loan is in place being used to settle the debt. Any equity in the property that arose up to the date of the benefit/loan being obtained should be exempt but it isn't.0 -
The debt is not just recovered on the sale of the property, it is recovered also if the property or part of it is transferred.
Many mortgages were taken out in the name of the breadwinner only. The spouse would not feature on the mortgage or even the deeds. At some time later if there is a transfer to joint names that will trigger the repayment. There hasn't been a sale and no monies have been received - who should pay the debt?
I have no objection to the portion of equity that relates to the period when the benefit/loan is in place being used to settle the debt. Any equity in the property that arose up to the date of the benefit/loan being obtained should be exempt but it isn't.0 -
The debt is not just recovered on the sale of the property, it is recovered also if the property or part of it is transferred.
Many mortgages were taken out in the name of the breadwinner only. The spouse would not feature on the mortgage or even the deeds. At some time later if there is a transfer to joint names that will trigger the repayment. There hasn't been a sale and no monies have been received - who should pay the debt?
I have no objection to the portion of equity that relates to the period when the benefit/loan is in place being used to settle the debt. Any equity in the property that arose up to the date of the benefit/loan being obtained should be exempt but it isn't.
Not too sure you're quite correct there........ we treat you and your
husband/wife/partner/civil partner as a couple and not two
separate people. So to accept the Support for Mortgage
Interest loan, you both need to sign the loan agreement.
If your husband/ wife/ partner/ civil partner who lives with
you does not agree to sign the loan documents, the Support
for Mortgage Interest loan payments can’t be made
because we treat you as a couple not two separate people
Although this is from the NI Dept of Communities, it's the same for the rest of the UK and it's easier to understand.0 -
Not too sure you're quite correct there........ we treat you and your
husband/wife/partner/civil partner as a couple and not two
separate people. So to accept the Support for Mortgage
Interest loan, you both need to sign the loan agreement.
If your husband/ wife/ partner/ civil partner who lives with
you does not agree to sign the loan documents, the Support
for Mortgage Interest loan payments can!!!8217;t be made
because we treat you as a couple not two separate people
Although this is from the NI Dept of Communities, it's the same for the rest of the UK and it's easier to understand.
I agree and that is how I read it. However the legislation does state that a transfer will trigger a recovery. What would happen if it wasn't the spouse but say an adult child or discretionary trust becomes joined to the property? Both are quite common, the first to reduce a liability on death of Inheritance tax, and the second to pass over a part of the property for the benefit of children who are under 16. Also what would happen if the current owner wishes to give away the ownership in totality to say an only adult son?
There are many scenarios where there could be a transfer within the family as mentioned - do they constitute a relevant transfer?
And as for signing the loan documents, the DWP would be on a sticky wicket if say husband has the mortgage and his name only appears on the deeds. To say that both would have to sign cannot happen as his wife does not have the legal power to authorise the charge on the property. If that were to happen would any subsequent charging document be valid if the signatures did not match the name on the deeds.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.4K Spending & Discounts
- 240.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.6K Life & Family
- 254.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards