RTB: Housing Question

Brown_Bear

Surely the best option would be for the OP to lend his mother the money to buy the house - with him as a secured creditor (ie have a charge on the property - just as a mortgage lender does)?

Then if the council want to try and force sale in the future (for care fees etc) or if the mum meets a new man etc - the OP still has a charge over the house.

The council could force a sale of the house - but why would they bother when the mum would not have much (or any) equity in the property?

Other option would be a joint purchase of the house (OP and mum both on the deeds).
Council unlikely to force sale of 50% - as they would need to find another buyer for the mum's 50% share?

Now I've heard this second option offers the best protection against care fees forced sale. But I personally don't understand why the council doesn't just force a sale of the whole house (for eg £100k). Then council takes the mum's share (ie £50k) and gives the OP the other £50k. That's what I would expect to happen - but apparently the council don't do that for some reason. Maybe someone on here will know why?

Brown_Bear

KatrinaWaves wrote: »

You You will be a secondary creditor

t. That would be far too easily abused in the situation you describe, and no one would ever pay for care.

Surely OP could be a SECURED creditor (ie like a mortgage lender?)

Brown_Bear

t0rt0ise wrote: »

People talk rubbish when it comes to right to buy. You are better asking the council and/or doing your own research.

For example, if you live there for a year, you can buy the house jointly with your mother. You do not have to be a tenant yourself. Look it up.

I think OP would need to become a JOINT TENANT.
Not that hard.

Brown_Bear

Mrs_Imp wrote: »

Ok, so you give your mum the money to buy her house and she becomes liable for repairs. You're currently happy to help out, so it's not a problem when her radiator leaks everywhere, as you have said you would foot the bill.
What happens when your GF wants your own house together? You get a mortgage/rent a place, have a couple of children. GF is off work on maternity leave, you're paying all the bills, and currently ends mostly meet. BUT it becomes apparent that your mum's house needs a new roof/new boiler/new windows/ something else unexpected. How would you find the money?
Or your company goes in to administration and you're laid off. Meanwhile mum's boiler has gone bang and leaked everywhere (happened to me when I was between jobs. No heating or hot water for 6 weeks one winter. Kettles and hot water bottles were my friends).
Unless you mum has the means to carry out repairs, then it's a massive gamble for her health.

This is a good point - life changes and OP may develop other commitments / problems.

eg if OP is sued / divorced etc - the house is up for grabs by his creditors.
Advantage of council tenancy is security.
Actually more secure than owning - from an asset protection perspective.

Brown_Bear

Cakeguts wrote: »

Looking on the bright side if it is a 3 bed and only worth around £90k it is probably in an area where no one wants to live and the council might have a job letting it so they might be happy to get rid of it and build a new up to date one somewhere better. The house is at least 40 years old so it will probably be getting to the point where it needs a new roof etc after all council builds did tend to be on the cheap side after the war. It probably doesn't have the modern level of insulation so it may be becoming difficult to let. To modernise it will probably cost more than you could sell it for and no council is going to want to do that.

That is the biggest load of nonsense I have read for a long time.
There are plenty of good quality houses for around £90k.
Plenty of roofs last 100 years - do you actually know anything at all about UK housing stock?
Councils do not have any difficulty finding tenants for 3 bedroom houses. That's why they were built. Specifically due to the gender sharing rules for children.

Brown_Bear

Mojisola wrote: »

Especially when its the nation's taxpayers who has been paying the rent for some of that time.

Like Buckingham Palace you mean?

Brown_Bear

The problem I see is that a lot of posters have been brainwashed by the mainstream media.
They like to blame the working classes (who mostly have the option of using RTB) - whilst ignoring the fact that most of the problems in this country are due to the wealthy inheriting their money tax free without doing any real work at all.

OP - ignore the posters who criticize you, whilst probably inheriting money themselves.

BUT there are some good points about considering what happens in the future.

Personally, I would be very cautious about using RTB in this situation - because it does put the house at risk of asset seizure if circumstances change.

It's a difficult decision. There's no right or wrong answer.

davidmcn

Brown_Bear wrote: »

Like Buckingham Palace you mean?

Liz Windsor doesn't have a right to buy it from the state.

Comms69

Brown_Bear wrote: »

The problem I see is that a lot of posters have been brainwashed by the mainstream media. - oh this will be good



They like to blame the working classes (who mostly have the option of using RTB) - whilst ignoring the fact that most of the problems in this country are due to the wealthy inheriting their money tax free without doing any real work at all. - Really, those are the problems. Not the millions living on state subsidy.

OP - ignore the posters who criticize you, whilst probably inheriting money themselves. - Yes, ignore people you don't agree with. That's the adult thing to do

BUT there are some good points about considering what happens in the future.

Personally, I would be very cautious about using RTB in this situation - because it does put the house at risk of asset seizure if circumstances change.

It's a difficult decision. There's no right or wrong answer.

There is a right answer.


The state revokes the RTB.

Brown_Bear

Comms69 wrote: »

There is a right answer.


The state revokes the RTB.

I actually agree that the country would run better if more people had secure tenancies (be that council, HA or employer).

Home ownership brings risks of asset seizure (eg care fees, lawsuits etc) and ties up money that would be better invested in companies.

My point is that many who criticize RTB are actually hypocrits, as they come from privileged wealthy backgrounds, where their parent and grandparents owned property and passed it down tax free.