Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Housing benefit rent from parent?

102 replies

IDoDaChaCha · 09/06/2017 08:15

In short, my mum is buying an investment property and has offered to rent it to me. I'm in social housing on housing benefit with horrible neighbours so I'm keen to move on.

She rang the council who said she has to have rented to the open market before she can rent to family and the rent be covered by housing benefit.

Does anyone know how long she'd need to rent on the open market before I could get housing benefit renting from her? x

OP posts:
Sycamorewindmills · 09/06/2017 17:46

It doesn't sit right with me. On a par with a family I know who moved into a council house, on full HB until they qualified for the right to buy at which point one of the sons stepped in and bought the house at a discount.

Allthebestnamesareused · 09/06/2017 17:53

The Op hasn't said that she is buying the property with a mortgage. Maybe she is paying cash for it but needs the rental income because her pension is so piss poor! The Mum will be buying and renting out a property anyway.

In those circumstances she generates herself an income.

The daughter (who will be claiming HB anyway) will be renting a property - which she would be doing anyway.

The mother has the comfort of knowing that someone she trusts lives in and looks after her property.

The OP has the comfort of basically a secure tenancy.

timeismovingon · 09/06/2017 18:08

As other posters have said the Mother could have paid cash for the property and is using the monthly income to fund her pension, care etc. I don't agree with the fact that because she has worked hard etc she should automatically help her dc out. Her dc are individual people. It's often said on here about helping the vulnerable, those in need etc. The OP is clearly one of those people, she is no different to anyone else.

namechange3571 · 09/06/2017 18:08

Persiancatlady - it would still be wrong because both mothers could still help their daughters out instead of relying on the governments purse.

namechange3571 · 09/06/2017 18:18

If the OP's mum is buying in cash outright it makes no difference- if anything it makes it worse because she is even more capable of helping her daughter out of an undesirable housing situation and is directly profiting from the benefit income rather than it being paid into a mortgage.

Appreciate others posts however that there may be any number of reasons why the OP is on benefits, but unless I've missed a post there has been no update from the OP in answer to this so would assume there isn't anything that would change this. Would like to be proven otherwise though.

Babyroobs · 09/06/2017 18:22

The daughter will probably one day inherit the house paid for by housing benefit she claimed. Total pisstake in my opinion and shouldn't be allowed.

timeismovingon · 09/06/2017 18:22

That doesn't made sense really. So it's ok for the taxpayer to pay a private landlord who could be very very wealthy and not take care of properties etc but not someone who will almost certainly ensure that their dc will be housed in suitable accommodation.

Sorry but I think the benefits system needs to be changed to give more to those who need it ie. the disabled. It's currently too broad and doesn't expect enough from people. People turn to the state more readily other than taking some responsibility for themselves.

namechange3571 · 09/06/2017 18:35

It's not ok for the taxpayer to pay housing benefit to any Landlord, decent or otherwise, if the Tenant has other means of being supported - such as a parent with sufficient savings to invest in a second home.

PersianCatLady · 09/06/2017 18:56

Persiancatlady - it would still be wrong because both mothers could still help their daughters out instead of relying on the governments purse
Don't be so ridiculous.

PersianCatLady · 09/06/2017 18:59

Directly profiting from the benefit income rather than it being paid into a mortgage
So, as long as the banks are the only ones to make a profit of of the taxpayer it is OK?

namechange3571 · 09/06/2017 19:04

I'm not sure why that is ridiculous?

Re mortgage, I don't see how it is reasonable for the benefits to be racking up in the OP's mother's bank account if the OP's mother could prevent her from needing to claim in the first place? I'm not saying one is better than the other, I think they are equally immoral, I am just saying that if no mortgage is needed the OP's mother is surely in an even better position to be able to assist her daughter.

PersianCatLady · 09/06/2017 19:08

If the OP was renting a house from another private landlord and claiming LHA and her mother bought a house to rent to a third party who was on LHA, then this wouldn'the even be an issue???

namechange3571 · 09/06/2017 19:27

Correct, the question of renting directly to a family member and the rent being paid by benefits would not have been raised.

The question of whether it is morally acceptable for a mother financially capable of investing in a second home whilst her daughter is being supported by benefits is the same.

I appreciate the OP has not asked whether it is morally acceptable or not, just whether it is logistically possible/how to reach that arrangement, but in that case perhaps AIBU is not the best place for the thread.

PersianCatLady · 09/06/2017 19:48

The question of whether it is morally acceptable for a mother financially capable of investing in a second home whilst her daughter is being supported by benefits is the same
So if one of your DC later in life chooses not to work for whatever reason and is eligible to claim LHA, you would be prepared to give them all of your savings so that they don't have to??

Even if you are 70 and they are 40??

namechange3571 · 09/06/2017 20:04

Yes, I would prioritise supporting them regardless of state entitlement before buying a second home.

I feel second home ownership, and the income generated from it, is a luxury not a necessity. Plenty manage without.

timeismovingon · 09/06/2017 20:09

I understand where you are coming from with this name especially as regards it not being morally right. However if you carried out the second scenario where you gave money when you were older you could be held up for giving away your assets.

I assume you find it morally wrong if I looked after my parents in their old age and charged them to live in my house and nursing care fees? Even though this would mean that they could stay with me and not go into a home. This would be a way of doing what people who have worked very hard for everything they have passing something on to their children.

Just one other thing. If you think that people in a position to help should do it if they are family then any free nursery place of a parent that doesn't work should be withdrawn because that it taking tax payers money?

namechange3571 · 09/06/2017 20:37

I'm not sure if I have completely understood your post time but I think what you are basically saying is that if you can afford to pay for anything yourself, why should the state offer you anything? So for example, if you can afford to pay for private healthcare why should you be entitled to care under the NHS?

I suppose my response would be that if you pay your tax when you are working, that tax funds those things, plus supporting those who are unable to work and need extra help. If you aren't offered anything by the state, why should you pay any tax on what you earn? That's probably another very long thread, so let's not get into that one here!

Personally I think there does seem to be more of a manipulation of the here. The mother is directly profiting from a system designed to act as a safety net when she could avoid her daughter needing that safety net in the first place by helping her out financially and going without the luxury of a second home.

I know there will be those that think the state is no worse off because they are paying that money out anyway, but I don't think the system will ever wash it's own face with that approach.

Allthebestnamesareused · 09/06/2017 20:43

The same way that there is no obligation on a person to leave their estate to a child there is no obligation to financially support an adult child.

The rental income may well be paying for the Op's mum's food, gas, electricity, council tax and other every day expenses because her pension doesn't cover this!

namechange3571 · 09/06/2017 21:02

Yes I see your point all the best but it sounds like there is a desire from the OP's mother to want to help her out, so couldn't she do so by using some of the second home deposit to help her daughter and some to subsidise her pension if it isn't sufficient for day to day living, thus relieving the state of one more claimant.

Yes in the long run the OP's mother will be worse off because she won't have her second home, but that will put her in no worse position than most. The OP will probably be worse off too eventually because there is a good chance she may inherit the second home at some point, but again lots of people are in that position.

As I said, there may be an underlying reason that the OP reveals which changes the circumstances and I am more than happy to be convinced if this is the case, but on the face of what we know so far, I don't think this arrangement is right. It sounds like it is had work to put in place, which probably says something.

PersianCatLady · 09/06/2017 23:08

Yes, I would prioritise supporting them regardless of state entitlement before buying a second home
For all you know the OP's mother is putting down the minimum possible deposit and the mortgage is only being paid because of the LHA payments.

There are a lot of people in the UK who without their parents being able to purchase a home for them to rent using LHA, would be homeless.

PersianCatLady · 09/06/2017 23:10

The rental income may well be paying for the Op's mum's food, gas, electricity, council tax and other every day expenses because her pension doesn't cover this!
Exactly, at last someone who lives in the real world.

Thank you.

PookieDo · 09/06/2017 23:13

You cannot use the NHS as an example.

It is not means tested

Anyone at any time can have pretty much the same treatment as another person aside from some differing commissioned services such as IVF etc.

Benefits don't work this way. Many working families in cities/towns in the south are on their knees because of the benefit capping. They work and they still cannot survive. People with disabilities are finding themselves worse off than ever before. So no, not everyone can access the same benefit/support services as everyone else.

Also in this scenario the OP already has a secure tenancy and doesn't like her neighbours. This is not the same as being homeless and in desperate need of support - in which case I kind of do see why people may do this.

I also see that it is not up to parents to buy their children houses - it is just interesting to see that adult children aren't the responsibility of their parents, who gave birth to them - as they are adults now - but the state taxpayer IS responsible. It could be the case that neither are responsible but only one is actually obliged

beardymcbeardy · 10/06/2017 14:51

It's not ok for the taxpayer to pay housing benefit to any Landlord, decent or otherwise, if the Tenant has other means of being supported - such as a parent with sufficient savings to invest in a second home. What a load of shite, are you actually proposing that parents of adult children should be forced to spend their savings housing their non dependent children. Otherwise how else would your idea work?

PersianCatLady · 10/06/2017 15:18

What a load of shite, are you actually proposing that parents of adult children should be forced to spend their savings housing their non dependent children. Otherwise how else would your idea work?
Exactly.

LadyinCement · 10/06/2017 15:23

I just read up on this as it is an interesting moral dilemma.

One consideration is that housing benefit will not be paid where a relative owns the house if the house is deemed too big or the rent too high and the renter is the first tenant. There have been a few court cases so clearly councils do investigate familial links.