Universal Credit and owning half a property, need advice

Grumpy_chap

Chablar said:

I've had some advice back from someone at Richardson Laine, they specialise in this area when it comes to benefits. They said the following:

"If you wanted to sell you would have to seek legal advice with a view to realising your share of the property, i.e. evicting your father-in-law from the property so you can sell this. You might be able to get an opinion that says this will be extremely difficult to do. In which case an opinion along these lines would further support that your wife's 50% share has a very low capital value."

Similar advice has also been mentioned here. The lady I spoke to was unable to elaborate further. Does anyone know who I could go to in order to obtain such a professional opinion in the matter? Would it be a solicitor or the company / individual we get in to value the property? 

Thanks again

I think, before spending money on Solicitors, it would be worth obtaining an initial valuation in writing which should be possible for no cost.  

Can the site operators provide a valuation for:

• the whole caravan as a willing sale
• half of the caravan with sitting tenant

The statement you have received from Richardson Laine about realising your share of the property requiring evicting your FiL and the difficulty of doing so resulting in a very low valuation for the half-share is no more than you have received through this thread.

Have you sought the valuation from the site operator?  What was the outcome of that?

As I understand it, you need to report the inheritance within one month of receiving the inheritance.  That might not be one month from date of death if the trigger is probate or some other later event.
If you fail to report within the required timeline, there may be a penalty.
When you do report the inheritance, if you state that it is your intention to sell the half property, then you will have a disregard for 6 months to conclude that sale process.  It will at least give you time to get everything in order and resolve the matter of the valuation.

I would like to think that a reasonable DM would allow you to present the case for disregard and nominal valuation of the half-share, allowing for the challenge of your FiL wishing to remain in the property without driving you to the expense of legal advice.

Chablar

sheramber said:

Does your local authority have a Welfare Rights section?

No, there's nothing I can see. There's welfare support but that looks to be something different. 

peb

Is there not a valuation for probate.

Chablar

I've had a recent breakthrough with this. I was doing some research and found the Mobile Homes Act 1983, and what happens to the signed pitch agreement after one of the occupiers passes away. That led me down a bit of a rabbit hole that turned out to be a gold mine. Here is some of what I submitted with my form to the decision maker:

"My mother and father in law bought a caravan to live in in 2021 for £115,000. When the sale of the park home was completed two things happened, one was the transfer in ownership of the caravan to both of them jointly from the old owner; the other was that they signed the Pitch Agreement with the site owner in accordance with the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The caravan is on a residential site with a 50 year age threshold if you want to live there. Last year my mother in law passed away and in her will left her half of the ownership of the caravan to my wife.

Section 3 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 states that if an occupier dies whilst they still occupy a park home (such as my mother in law), then their rights and responsibilities under the Pitch Agreement will automatically pass to, and be binding upon and surviving family member who was living in the park home with the occupier when they died, even if that family member was not named as a party in the agreement. In our situation however, my father was in law was a named party in the pitch agreement and so the entire pitch agreement belongs solely to him, while half of the ownership of the park home belongs to my wife. Section 3 sets out these regulations for the duration of the park home, and they are not to end when an occupier passes away.

Here is what Section 3 of the Act states:

“3. Successors in title

1. An agreement to which this Act applies shall be binding on and enure for the benefit of any successor in title of the owner and any person claiming through or under the owner or any such successor.

2. Where an agreement to which this Act applies is lawfully assigned to any person, the agreement shall enure for the benefit of and be binding on that person.

3. Where a person entitled to the benefit of and bound by an agreement to which this Act applies dies at a time when he is occupying the mobile home as his only or main residence, the agreement shall enure for the benefit of and be binding on—

(a) any person residing with that person (“the deceased”) at that time being—

1. the widow  [F1, widower or surviving civil partner]  of the deceased; or

2. in default of a widow  [F1, widower or surviving civil partner]  so residing, any member of the deceased’s family; or

(b) in default of any such person so residing, the person entitled to the mobile home by virtue of the deceased’s will or under the law relating to intestacy but subject to subsection (4) below. “

The problem my wife and I are faced with is that part ownership of the park home is now separated from the occupational rights through her mother's will. My wife has no occupational rights to live in the home, as she is not named on the pitch agreement. This also means that my wife cannot lawfully remove my father in law from living in the home, despite her owning half of it. We are unable to sell half of a caravan. Even if we were able to sell my wife's half share, it would be worthless to anyone looking to buy a park home or a share in a park home as it would not come attached with it the pitch agreement which would give the buyer permission to live on the site. This, along with the fact that caravans are depreciating assets in themselves with a limited lifespan makes my wife's half share worthless to anyone who would be interested in buying this type of item.

Apparently most cases such as this would be resolved by the occupying party buying out the part owned by the owner, however my father in law is not in a position to undergo such a course of action.

This issue of the Pitch Agreement clashing with Park Home ownership was recently considered by the Upper Tribunal in the case of Barrs Residential & Leisure Limited v Pleass Thompson & Co [2020] UKUT 114 (LC)

The Upper Tribunal adjudicated that although the son in the case had become the lawful owner of the park home, he had no right to occupy it or to sell it because the agreement had not been assigned to him. The Upper Tribunal ruled that the occupation rights and ownership rights were two distinct things. This is especially important because the majority of the value in a park home is the benefit of having an agreement which allows it to be kept on a pitch – without this, the home on its own has little or no real value.

As such my wife's 50% ownership of the property is not a tangible asset that she can take steps to realise. There is no lawful way to remove her father from occupation and force the sale of the property because he is the sole owner of the pitch agreement and the rights to live there, as well as a half owner. We cannot sell 50% of a property. If we could put my wife's share of the property on the open market if would be basically meaningless as whoever may be looking to buy it would be expected to buy a depreciating asset, with a limited lifespan, with no legal permissions to live either in the property or on the site."

Sorry for the text dump. I had a phone call from the decision maker today saying they agree completely with my assessment of things, and not only is the caravan virtually worthless but there is no legal way for my wife to realise her half of the value of it. I thought I would update this in case anyone is in a similar situation when it comes to park homes. The decision maker was very friendly and said she was very familiar with the Mobile Homes Act so I imagine they have to deal with this sort of situation relatively regularly. It was all a learning experience for me though. Thanks everyone for the help

Alice_Holt

Excellent.
Thanks for updating the thread.

Spoonie_Turtle

Your update is great news, and all the information you've included will be very valuable for anyone else coming to this site seeking advice for a similar situation.

I'm sorry for your wife's loss and glad this will no longer be a stress hanging over you both.

Grumpy_chap

Chablar said:

I've had a recent breakthrough with this. I was doing some research and found the Mobile Homes Act 1983, and what happens to the signed pitch agreement after one of the occupiers passes away. That led me down a bit of a rabbit hole that turned out to be a gold mine. Here is some of what I submitted with my form to the decision maker:

"My mother and father in law bought a caravan to live in in 2021 for £115,000. When the sale of the park home was completed two things happened, one was the transfer in ownership of the caravan to both of them jointly from the old owner; the other was that they signed the Pitch Agreement with the site owner in accordance with the Mobile Homes Act 1983. The caravan is on a residential site with a 50 year age threshold if you want to live there. Last year my mother in law passed away and in her will left her half of the ownership of the caravan to my wife.

Section 3 of the Mobile Homes Act 1983 states that if an occupier dies whilst they still occupy a park home (such as my mother in law), then their rights and responsibilities under the Pitch Agreement will automatically pass to, and be binding upon and surviving family member who was living in the park home with the occupier when they died, even if that family member was not named as a party in the agreement. In our situation however, my father was in law was a named party in the pitch agreement and so the entire pitch agreement belongs solely to him, while half of the ownership of the park home belongs to my wife. Section 3 sets out these regulations for the duration of the park home, and they are not to end when an occupier passes away.

Here is what Section 3 of the Act states:

“3. Successors in title

1. An agreement to which this Act applies shall be binding on and enure for the benefit of any successor in title of the owner and any person claiming through or under the owner or any such successor.

2. Where an agreement to which this Act applies is lawfully assigned to any person, the agreement shall enure for the benefit of and be binding on that person.

3. Where a person entitled to the benefit of and bound by an agreement to which this Act applies dies at a time when he is occupying the mobile home as his only or main residence, the agreement shall enure for the benefit of and be binding on—

(a) any person residing with that person (“the deceased”) at that time being—

1. the widow  [F1, widower or surviving civil partner]  of the deceased; or

2. in default of a widow  [F1, widower or surviving civil partner]  so residing, any member of the deceased’s family; or

(b) in default of any such person so residing, the person entitled to the mobile home by virtue of the deceased’s will or under the law relating to intestacy but subject to subsection (4) below. “

The problem my wife and I are faced with is that part ownership of the park home is now separated from the occupational rights through her mother's will. My wife has no occupational rights to live in the home, as she is not named on the pitch agreement. This also means that my wife cannot lawfully remove my father in law from living in the home, despite her owning half of it. We are unable to sell half of a caravan. Even if we were able to sell my wife's half share, it would be worthless to anyone looking to buy a park home or a share in a park home as it would not come attached with it the pitch agreement which would give the buyer permission to live on the site. This, along with the fact that caravans are depreciating assets in themselves with a limited lifespan makes my wife's half share worthless to anyone who would be interested in buying this type of item.

Apparently most cases such as this would be resolved by the occupying party buying out the part owned by the owner, however my father in law is not in a position to undergo such a course of action.

This issue of the Pitch Agreement clashing with Park Home ownership was recently considered by the Upper Tribunal in the case of Barrs Residential & Leisure Limited v Pleass Thompson & Co [2020] UKUT 114 (LC)

The Upper Tribunal adjudicated that although the son in the case had become the lawful owner of the park home, he had no right to occupy it or to sell it because the agreement had not been assigned to him. The Upper Tribunal ruled that the occupation rights and ownership rights were two distinct things. This is especially important because the majority of the value in a park home is the benefit of having an agreement which allows it to be kept on a pitch – without this, the home on its own has little or no real value.

As such my wife's 50% ownership of the property is not a tangible asset that she can take steps to realise. There is no lawful way to remove her father from occupation and force the sale of the property because he is the sole owner of the pitch agreement and the rights to live there, as well as a half owner. We cannot sell 50% of a property. If we could put my wife's share of the property on the open market if would be basically meaningless as whoever may be looking to buy it would be expected to buy a depreciating asset, with a limited lifespan, with no legal permissions to live either in the property or on the site."

Sorry for the text dump. I had a phone call from the decision maker today saying they agree completely with my assessment of things, and not only is the caravan virtually worthless but there is no legal way for my wife to realise her half of the value of it. I thought I would update this in case anyone is in a similar situation when it comes to park homes. The decision maker was very friendly and said she was very familiar with the Mobile Homes Act so I imagine they have to deal with this sort of situation relatively regularly. It was all a learning experience for me though. Thanks everyone for the help

Thanks for updating and providing all the details from your research.  This gives a source of reference for others as, even though it is an unusual situation, it will occur again.
I am glad that the DM accepted the demininus valuation.