In-laws threatening to gazump us!

princeofpounds

I am 100% certain we are only being told part of the story here. The in-laws clearly had very different expectations about the conclusion to this arrangement compared to the OP. Maybe those expectations were never even communicated to the OP by their SO, or maybe they have been misremembered. 

Quite why the in-laws reacted to this specific purchase with a threat to bid on the new property is unusual. Perhaps they expected OP and SO would buy the house they are in, that they would use these funds to buy their next property, that just happens to be one very much like the new property.

But frankly without any real explanation of the root of the upset it's not worth deep commentary here. Either the OP has to really discuss what the arrangements were, or they have to have a serious talk with their SO about what was said at the time, or they just have plain insane in-laws in which case rational discussion won't get you very far.

Comms69

Bet they've not been doing things properly in terms of your tenancy - perhaps that's a bargaining chip you may wish to use.

Jeepers_Creepers

I suspect, like PoP and others, that the inlaws do see it quite differently, and possibly legitimately so. 

By the OP's admission, they did help them out of a hole, and then gave them a roof over their heads at a discounted price. We don't know the sums involved, but it was clearly low enough to allow the OP to save enough for a house deposit. 

What were the inlaws' true expectations/reasoning for this arrangement? If it was a 'family' issue - trying to keep them close or controlling them in some way - we don't know. A more practical issue was, perhaps, an expectation that the grateful 'tenants' would buy the house when they could afford to do so. 

I think it's pretty likely that this is not a proper 'tenancy'. I doubt there's a contract or even a gas safety check carried out. It was quite probably a very casual 'you can stay here for just £x, but you need to look after it yourselves...' and goodness knows what else.

So, quite possibly, the inlaws do see this (rightly or wrongly) as an ungrateful kick in the teeth for their generosity. 

My impression is not helped by the OP being adamant that they won't buy their inlaws' house. This could very well be a cracking bargain (we don't know), and it's clearly good enough to keep on living in it as they spend their deposit money doing it up properly instead. Once it's theirs, they can do with it what they will, and the inlaws wouldn't be able to do a thing about it (so there would be the added benefit of seeing the look on their face when you sell it on for a handsome profit...).

This could be a much better opportunity to move up the property ladder than simply buying an already nice house.

We just don't know. I'd love to hear the other protagonist's side!

macman

The tenancy may well not be regularised, but it's still a legal tenancy: the absence of a written contract, GSC, deposit protection etc does not alter that. They have exclusive occupation, and they pay rent: that is all that is required to create a tenancy. Indeed, it makes the tenant even more secure, because, once evictions can resume, the serving of an S21 is likely to be invalidated by the unregularised status.

Mojisola

Jeepers_Creepers said:

Once it's theirs, they can do with it what they will, and the inlaws wouldn't be able to do a thing about it

In this situation some parents can't let go of the 'ownership' of the property and have made their adult children's lives miserable by disagreeing with changes/improvements/decoration done to the house.

Rather than risk a lifetime of criticism or having to reduce time spent with parents, I'd go for another property.

Jeepers_Creepers

From what the OP has said, their inlaws want them to buy their house instead and have offered it at a good discount.

Assuming it is, indeed, a tempting price, once bought it's theirs, to do with as they like. If the OP wants to move up the property ladder, it could be a good opportunity. They are simply 'adamant' that they don't want to do this.

olgadapolga

Jeepers_Creepers said:

 Once it's theirs, they can do with it what they will, and the inlaws wouldn't be able to do a thing about it (so there would be the added benefit of seeing the look on their face when you sell it on for a handsome profit...).

The OP's in-laws sound as controlling as my MIL used to be (her way, or no way). If I was in this situation, and I purchased the in-law's rental property, I could see my MIL exerting her opinion on everything that we tried to do (she used to do this anyway, about everything we tried to do which is why we refused to allow my in-laws to contribute towards our wedding as she'd have tried to control every aspect of it). I think that selling the house for a handsome profit would be another stick with which to beat the OP - she'd never hear the end of it. It would be a bone of contention that could cause a significant issue if/when the house was sold on.

sheramber

If they sold the house to you they would have to pay CGT on the profit they made.  

Slithery

sheramber said:

If they sold the house to you they would have to pay CGT on the profit they made.  

And at the market value too, not the discounted price.

Jeepers_Creepers

olgadapolga said:

Jeepers_Creepers said:

 Once it's theirs, they can do with it what they will, and the inlaws wouldn't be able to do a thing about it (so there would be the added benefit of seeing the look on their face when you sell it on for a handsome profit...).

The OP's in-laws sound as controlling as my MIL used to be (her way, or no way). If I was in this situation, and I purchased the in-law's rental property, I could see my MIL exerting her opinion on everything that we tried to do (she used to do this anyway, about everything we tried to do which is why we refused to allow my in-laws to contribute towards our wedding as she'd have tried to control every aspect of it). I think that selling the house for a handsome profit would be another stick with which to beat the OP - she'd never hear the end of it. It would be a bone of contention that could cause a significant issue if/when the house was sold on.

The OP - drinkuppretty - is currently seemingly concerned that the inlaws might actually deliberately gazump them so as to prevent them moving house and to possibly keep them under control. That's pretty intense stuff by any measure. 

We, of course, don't know what lies behind this; is one party completely off the scale, are both, is one more than t'other, whatevs, but there is clearly an unhealthy thing going on.  

Assuming that DUP and her husband are relatively innocent in all of this, and also really believe that the situation they are in is as described - kowtowing to controlling parents, being potentially scuppered in their plans to move - it seems to me they have two options; one is to pursue the new house with whatever risk that entails (possible catastrophe if gazumped, stuck in their current house, relations worsened), and the other is to stall the antagonism between them by pursuing what could possibly be a better ultimate escape route; say 'ok, thanks, we'll buy your house', and then they do it up and make their break. It all depends, of course, on the sums involved. Bottom line to me is, once the house is bought, the inlaws cease to have control. 

To not get on with your inlaws is one thing, but to actually believe they could be capable of financially nobbling your house-move suggests to me a family relationship so bad that it's best severed. How to do this would - for me - come down to the best decision for me and my partner.