Right to Buy, Outright

CocoLouie

Guerillatoker wrote: »

What a condescending gob!!!!! you are.

The truth hurts. Just be honest that you are buying the property to line your own pocket at the expense of your mother's security

CocoLouie

Guerillatoker wrote: »

Every decision is made with several motivators you monomaniac.

Of course the equity in the property motivated me to look into RTB, it would be naive to suggest otherwise, but if you think that is my only concern then that just says more about how you see your friends & family.

I would never put any of my family in even the tiniest amount of risk for financial gain. I think the fact that you are even entertaining the notion and the fact that you need to resort to insults because someone is highlighting these risks says more about how you are and how you see family.

Guerillatoker

CocoLouie wrote: »

I would never put any of my family in even the tiniest amount of risk for financial gain. I think the fact that you are even entertaining the notion and the fact that you need to resort to insults because someone is highlighting these risks says more about how you are and how you see family.

I resort to insults because of your deplorable attitude. Others, such as Cakeguts, managed to raise the same points without being self-righteous.

xylophone

The OP and his mother have the right to buy the house.

They would buy it outright, the OP with his own means and his mother with a loan from her other son who would protect his investment with a charge on the property.

The OP and his mother would own as tenants-in- common.


If the mother went into care and was looking to the LA to fund it, presumably they would have to value her share after deducting the loan and on the basis of the sale of her beneficial interest to a willing buyer - this might not be very high since the OP as co owner would have the right to reside in the property when and for as long as he wished?

bitsandpieces

Guerillatoker wrote: »

Part of the discussion is about social care so I have a slightly off-topic query.

Obviously if my mum has assets she is at risk of having to fund her own social care. Would the quality of care we could obtain be higher than if the council had to pick up the tab?

No doubt most of you have no experience in this area - I couldn't find much on google.

That's a complicated question. In terms of in-home care, if your mum had assets (or a relative wanted to fund it) she could pay for extra help in addition to what the council assessed her as needing: so she might benefit from more help in the home, or from being able to pay someone to support her to go out and do things she enjoyed. She might also have more flexibility about care-home choice if self-funding: she could go somewhere that the council wouldn't fund for her.

Worth noting that care costs (especially care home fees) can swallow a lot of money really quickly: unless your mum accumulated a *lot* of assets, they could go far quicker than you expect Of course, if your mum doesn't have assets and you (or other family) are happy to continue helping to pay for things, you could also pay for additional care etc. to top up what the council provides.

Cakeguts

To be absolutely on the safe side your mother's housing has to be capable of being funded entirely by her. Once she has to start relying on other people for certain bits of funding she has a problem if that stops.


The kindest thing you can do is to get the council to provide housing that she can pay for with housing benefit that she claims independently and that doesn't rely on funding from anyone else. If you can slowly set this up then you will know that she is safe and is not likely to get into any financial problems.