Beneficial interest

GDB2222

Emmahod said:

swingaloo said:

If the house was bought 15 years ago where has all the equity gone?

It has been identified as having structural issues 

I can see why it annoys you so much now. When did these structural issues become apparent?

swingaloo

Wow, that does make a difference. 

So 15 years down the line and you have to start again. Depends how you look at it, on the one hand you have been paying a mortgage and so should have been building up equity but on the other hand if you would not have been able to buy without the parents help then you would probably have been renting and so are in the same position.

Emmahod

GDB2222 said:

Emmahod said:

swingaloo said:

If the house was bought 15 years ago where has all the equity gone?

It has been identified as having structural issues 

I can see why it annoys you so much now. When did these structural issues become apparent?

It has all started prob in the last 12 months it wasn’t until we got it checked we have found out the extent of it 
I haven’t seen the original survey that was done on the house as it was purchased before me and my husband got together but I can’t imagine it mentions anything from back then 

Emmahod

swingaloo said:

Wow, that does make a difference. 

So 15 years down the line and you have to start again. Depends how you look at it, on the one hand you have been paying a mortgage and so should have been building up equity but on the other hand if you would not have been able to buy without the parents help then you would probably have been renting and so are in the same position.

It’s just frustrating that me and my husband are taking the full loss on the value of the house. 

I see it (and I could be wrong) that if w hadn’t paid the mortgage there would be even less equity in it than there is now. And I get the in laws put a deposit in but I feel like we have basically paid to protect their investment 
it seems unfair to me but if there is nothing I can do there is nothing I can do apart from learn a very expensive lesson 

silvercar

Wouldn’t the structural problem be insured? Get it fixed through your insurer and then sell.

Bookworm105

Emmahod said:

swingaloo said:

Wow, that does make a difference. 

So 15 years down the line and you have to start again. Depends how you look at it, on the one hand you have been paying a mortgage and so should have been building up equity but on the other hand if you would not have been able to buy without the parents help then you would probably have been renting and so are in the same position.

It’s just frustrating that me and my husband are taking the full loss on the value of the house. 

I see it (and I could be wrong) that if w hadn’t paid the mortgage there would be even less equity in it than there is now. And I get the in laws put a deposit in but I feel like we have basically paid to protect their investment 
it seems unfair to me but if there is nothing I can do there is nothing I can do apart from learn a very expensive lesson 

in an earlier post you said PIL had purchased the property as buy to let. Therefore "if w hadn’t paid the mortgage there would be even less equity in it than there is now" is untrue.
By taking occupation you have deprived PIL of a rental income that should have both paid the mortgage and given given them a personal additional income. Instead, all they are getting now is a lump sum back which has been severely eroded in value by inflation. If the total they get is a tad more than the original deposit, then all that is doing is going some way to redress that inflation loss (and any such "profit" is taxable anyway).

I am sorry your housing bubble has burst, but railing at PIL because of it is pointless.
I wonder if, rather than PIL, they were your own parents, would your stance be different?.
You've had years in which you could have nagged your husband to move for example. 

Emmahod

Bookworm105 said:

Emmahod said:

swingaloo said:

Wow, that does make a difference. 

So 15 years down the line and you have to start again. Depends how you look at it, on the one hand you have been paying a mortgage and so should have been building up equity but on the other hand if you would not have been able to buy without the parents help then you would probably have been renting and so are in the same position.

It’s just frustrating that me and my husband are taking the full loss on the value of the house. 

I see it (and I could be wrong) that if w hadn’t paid the mortgage there would be even less equity in it than there is now. And I get the in laws put a deposit in but I feel like we have basically paid to protect their investment 
it seems unfair to me but if there is nothing I can do there is nothing I can do apart from learn a very expensive lesson 

in an earlier post you said PIL had purchased the property as buy to let. Therefore "if w hadn’t paid the mortgage there would be even less equity in it than there is now" is untrue.
By taking occupation you have deprived PIL of a rental income that should have both paid the mortgage and given given them a personal additional income. Instead, all they are getting now is a lump sum back which has been severely eroded in value by inflation. If the total they get is a tad more than the original deposit, then all that is doing is going some way to redress that inflation loss (and any such "profit" is taxable anyway).

I am sorry your housing bubble has burst, but railing at PIL because of it is pointless.
I wonder if, rather than PIL, they were your own parents, would your stance be different?.
You've had years in which you could have nagged your husband to move for example. 

If they had rented the property out then they would have been responsible for maintaining it over the years and this structural issue would have still arose so they would have been left with the same amount that they have now, less if you consider the general cost of maintaining a house to keep it suitable for rental. 

We have paid for all maintenance on that house inc surveys and all legal fees/estate agent fees to sell it and come out with nothing. 

It isn’t about my stance due to the in laws you have no idea about the relationship I have with them. 

I was simply asking advice and your negative feedback on what you presume is my family situation is uncalled for. 

Thank you to everyone who has given helpful advice I will speak to our solicitor if I require anything further 

martindow

The point regarding insurance raised by silvercar is relevant here I would think.  If the solicitor was aware of the loss of value due to structural issues they should have advised contacting the insurers before selling.  A remedy paid by them could have changed the OP's financial situation radically.  

I would be inclined to make a formal complaint to the solicitor if insurance was in place before the sale. 

BarelySentientAI

Emmahod said:

swingaloo said:

Wow, that does make a difference. 

So 15 years down the line and you have to start again. Depends how you look at it, on the one hand you have been paying a mortgage and so should have been building up equity but on the other hand if you would not have been able to buy without the parents help then you would probably have been renting and so are in the same position.

It’s just frustrating that me and my husband are taking the full loss on the value of the house. 

I see it (and I could be wrong) that if w hadn’t paid the mortgage there would be even less equity in it than there is now. And I get the in laws put a deposit in but I feel like we have basically paid to protect their investment 
it seems unfair to me but if there is nothing I can do there is nothing I can do apart from learn a very expensive lesson 

If what you say about the original deed of trust is correct, that it was a simple ££ value, then unfortunately it is unlikely there is anything you can do - as you say, you paid to protect their investment with the hopes that any and all increase in value would be yours to keep, which hasn't happened due to the price drop.

I don't know if you could try and argue anything about intent, that a % ownership split is what they really meant at the start, perhaps your solicitor could advise on that.