Complex Right To By / Ownership Situation

c00k1e316 wrote: »

I really think you should perhaps keep what you think you know to yourself - it’s a little condescending. My mother was never in a position to purchase the house and would have been paying rent the rest of her life - she will never be without a home for as long as she lives and I’d appreciate if you kept your moral opinions out of the situation.

The question I asked was, can we transfer the equity in the house before the 5 year discount limit seen as it’s not a sale and I’m already joint owner.

If anyone could give me a steer on the question I’d be really grateful for the help ����

You keep saying that people are patronising you but again and again you show that you haven't thought this through properly


Now you say that your mother has a house for life but she may not have because you are talking about getting a mortgage on the house.



There are no benefits that will pay a mortgage if you become ill and are unable to work or if you become unemployed. You may get the interest on the mortgage paid for a short time but if you cannot pay the mortgage for a long time the bank or building society will repossess it. If the house is repossessed you and your mother will become homeless and neither of you will be rehoused by the council. Single people can claim housing benefit but only enough for one room in a shared house. So one room in a house with strangers.



The problem I have with all of your plans is this. Your mother was a secure council tenant. She had a home rented from the council for the rest of her life. If she had needed retirment housing or sheltered housing the council would have provided it for her. As a home owner that is now not going to happen. If she needs sheltered housing she will have to buy it with the money from the half share of the house that she owns with you. The council will not provide her with any more council housing because she already owns a property with you. People who own properties are expected to make their own arrangements when it comes to sheltered housing and care homes.


So here is the situation as it stands at the moment. Your mother is living with your gran. Unless she is on the deeds to gran's house she has no right to that accommodation or any money from that accommodation if your gran's house has to be sold to pay for care home fees. You want to remove your mother from the deeds to the house that she owns with you. So if you do that and then gran goes into a home and then you take out a mortgage and lose your job and can't pay the mortgage where does that leave your mother? It leaves her in one room in a shared house living with strangers and all of this so that you spend money on her house that you and she have been living in for 25 years without a problem.


I am extremely worried about your mother's situation in all of this. No one seems to have planned for what would happen if you are unable to pay the mortgage. At the moment she doesn't have a problem because she owns half of a house. If you remove her from the deeds she is effectively homeless.

The general rule under the Housing Act is that a transfer is not a relevant disposal if it is exempted under section 160.

Having had a quick scan, it appears that the transfer may be an exempted disposal, as, under sections 160(1)(a) & (2)(a), you would be classed as a qualifying person. The question then becomes whether the transfer would be a transfer of the whole property.

If you own the property as joint tenants then it would be as it is a transfer of the whole to someone (you) who was one of the original purchasers.

If you own it as tenants in common then it is more complex as it may not be classed as a transfer of the whole, rather a transfer of your mums share of the whole.

Something else to consider is that the Council have a charge over the property. You mention that you didn't have a mortgage, therefore this charge will be the first charge. Most lenders will want their charge to be the first charge. The Council have to suspend their charge in certain circumstances to allow a lender to take priority. One of these circumstances is where the funds are to be used exclusively for improvements. Council's do however have policies for this and you may have to provide them with quotes etc as well as allow them to view the property before and after the works to ensure the funds were used correctly.

csgohan4 wrote: »

no prizes for guessing who got the better deal and it certainly wasn't the mum,

I've referred people to Adult Safeguarding for less and this certainly is worrying for the OP's Mother. Your mother is probably in no shape to make decisions on a house when she is looking after her own ill mother.

There has been an Adult Safeguarding issue with this from the Right to Buy time.



The mother has not gained anything from this Right to Buy. In effect she has lost something. She has lost part of her home. As a tenant she had the tenancy of the whole house.



If her name is removed from the deeds she will lose her entire home. This is not in her best interests.

You remove her, you end up in tragic accident (I hope not), but what happens to your Mum?

csgohan4 wrote: »

The Op is a good example of everything wrong with RTB, you can't assume people will make reasonable decisions at the tax payers expense

Also a good example of why money and family shouldn't mix, the fact the OP paid for the house with all her money, they feel entitiled to the house as a whole despite mother being 50% ownership,

The OP has written "as the house is mine." Implication being that the house already belongs only to the OP and the mother's name on the deeds is only some sort of formality to do with the rules on Right to Buy not as an actual sign of ownership. The way I read this is that the OP wants the mother's name to be removed from the deeds of a house that the OP already owns because they paid for it. I don't think they understand that they gave half the value of the house to their mother for her to buy her half.



It is quite clear from the OP that they think that their mother owns half of a house and that ownership has no value because the OP paid for the house. The bit about giving their mother the money to buy her half doesn't seem to have been understood.