In Laws own our house but won't spend money on it.

[galavantingthrulife]

It's an endless source of frustration! In laws bought our house before we met as OH was struggling financially and they are well off.
They charge us rent which is slightly below the going rate but refuse to spend any money on it.
It's a fucking nightmare as I cannot divide loyalties with OH and now we are too old and with a less than perfect credit history to buy the damn thing.
It needs a new kitchen but aibu to not pay for it ourselves as we do not own it. To top it off in laws are having a new designer kitchen put in their house which they won't shut up about.
I am so annoyed at living like this!

[diddl]

"That would mean that nobody ever had full agency to give anybody anything outright - it could only ever be considered a potential gift, until the giver has died without needing any state funding for care - which is ridiculous."

But from the other side of the coin, why should tax payers pick up care fees for someone that gave away a house?

[bp300]

Is the kitchen they're removing from their house worth having in your house?

[puzzledpiece]

stick it out. save money and rebuild your credit score. then either offer to buy it or buy elsewhere.

[TriangularRatbag]

There are various common Mumsnet themes mixed up in this situation, but I'm guessing that one of them is that the original poster and her husband are expecting an inheritance (the house) and are already planning their lives on the basis that that's what's happening. That's why they're staying put. And the common Mumsnet view is that that's not very nice, or very sensible. So on that basis alone I'd say: find somewhere else to rent.

The only other reason I can see why they'd stay put is cheap rent. There's an easy calculation to be done there though. Is the cheap rent cheap enough to make up for the fact that the place is scruffy and then some? If not then same advice: move out. If it's still cheap by the standards of scruffy houses then they can't really complain - they're being subsidised.

[Alsohuman]

But this doesn't mean that the Council can come after every fiver your parents have ever given you for Christmas

But presumably it does mean if you gave your kids a house deposit 30 years ago, it could be seen as deprivation of assets? Always assuming banks keep records that long. Do they?

[Kisskiss]

If you don’t like the state of the house, move! If 700 is normal rent and you are paying 600 then maybe 600 is normal for a property with an old kitchen and someone else will have it?
Sounds like a solution that should suit both you and the PILs.. unless of course you just want everything to suit yourself.. below market rent.. landlords that will never kick you out.. free redecoration..

[justasking111]

Well if you may lose it anyway to pay nursing home costs do you really want to be facing eviction down the road. I would get an EA in and get a market rentable value off them, you will know then what you are saving, you may not be. If you are paying less than market value are you saving up for a deposit?

[WhereamI88]

I would move, it doesn't sound like you're getting a good deal at all, just leave them to it

[marmitelover13]

I'd just move out. Have been in the same situation and it damages the relationship. Better to rent a nicer place elsewhere and avoid the drama.

[MrsNoah2020]

@Alsohuman

But this doesn't mean that the Council can come after every fiver your parents have ever given you for Christmas

But presumably it does mean if you gave your kids a house deposit 30 years ago, it could be seen as deprivation of assets? Always assuming banks keep records that long. Do they?

Unlikely because it depends on whether the need for care was foreseeable at the time of the gift, and the intention behind the gift. But is it is complicated. Anyone making a substantial gift to children (or anyone else) should take legal advice, because there are ways to minimise the risks.

[TriangularRatbag]

But presumably it does mean if you gave your kids a house deposit 30 years ago, it could be seen as deprivation of assets?

As I recall, there's no time frame. But the test is whether the donor's intention was to divest herself of assets in order to avoid care-home fees. It would be next to impossible for the local authority to show that that was the intention thirty years ago!

[ohdearmymistake]

Surely if you have been paying rent regularly and on time then this will help with your credit rating. You should have a paper trail to show this.

[Nat6999]

Contact your local council, they have a private letting standards office who can come & inspect, if anything is below standard they can force them to get it sorted or be prosecuted.

[Soontobe60]

Why don't you offer to buy the house off them at below market value?

[Xenia]

Only 1 in 5 people need a care home so that may be a bit of a red herring in all this if the house were to be given to the son now perhaps with a post-nuptial agreement put in place to protect it from the wife on a divorce.

if the house has a bad kitchen then move to rent somewhere with a nicer one as this property doesn't seem to be something that suits you although you might well have more stability renting from the parents than renting from a landlord and having to move every year.

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

£700 pm is a perfectly normal rent in much of the country.

Yes, definitely.

Our three-bedroom house (nowhere near London or any other big city) is currently on an interest-only mortgage, and the mortgage is £233 per month at the moment, owing to the current record low interest rates, but has been under £300 for a long time. Yes, we're effectively 'renting' from the lender until the capital is repaid by other means, but all increases in value above that of the amount borrowed belong to us and the ownership is in our hands by default, with the potential for the lender to force the sale to recoup their share if we default on the monthly payments and/or don't repay the capital (or make alternative arrangements with them) once the term of the mortgage is up.

Why should it be considered cheap for somebody renting - i.e. never owning any share of the property or benefiting from the increase in the value of the property over time - when they're already having to pay maybe two or three times what an owner is paying for the interest element of a mortgage on the same property - and usually not by choice? Granted, the costs of maintenance and repairs fall to us, as there is no landlord, but renters paying market rates (or thereabouts) still very much get the worse deal. I don't see why they should be considered 'lucky', unless they're paying zero or a peppercorn rent.

[TheBouquets]

@saltycat do you really think that the OP's PILs should just hand over the property to them, OP and her DP? This is the person who got into financial trouble which caused them to decide to ensure that he had a steady roof over his head.
That is a very demanding attitude and it would not get the OP and DP far if it was me. I was very nearly in this situation. I was told that they would not pay me rent at all. They did not know that their rent would go to help their children get homes when they were adults. I didn't say because that would be too near to blackmail for my liking.
If the house is in a decent area with good surroundings such as transport school shops etc why not pay for the kitchen yourselves? It would be OP using the kitchen. Alternatively you could buy a moveable unfitted kitchen which you could take with you when you move.
Far too much entitled attitude here. If the DP is on a more sound financial footing and with a steady partner, hopefully both working, the could buy or rent there own place and PILs could get back the money or provide a home for other family members on a reduced rent

[altiara]

I would look for another place to rent. Either at market value for a place you like or see if there’s anywhere even cheaper so you can save for your own house.
I’d hate to be living in a house I don’t like where I might be waiting until I’m 70 for my DP to inherit a house in bad shape and even then it’s not guaranteed.
What does your DP think?

[Cheesypea]

Can she sell you the property?

[bridgetreilly]

If you've been living there for years then I think YABU, tbh, and if you want the new kitchen, pay for it. Or, you know, move house.

[WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll]

If the house is in a decent area with good surroundings such as transport school shops etc why not pay for the kitchen yourselves? It would be OP using the kitchen. Alternatively you could buy a moveable unfitted kitchen which you could take with you when you move.
Far too much entitled attitude here.

The alternative option would be fair (although what proportion of kitchens are not fitted in practice?), but the whole idea of renting and never owning the house and its fixtures and fittings is that this is the financial responsibility of the landlord/owner. Who would pay a hefty premium to rent a house and also expect to pay to improve the property itself - and thus leave themselves open to being charged more in rent as a consequence, as the OP and DH found with the carpets they paid for?

[Thelittleweasel]

@galavantingthrulife

You certainly "can" do the work yourself with their permission [get it in writing]. The problem is that - of course - it sounds as if you will not get reimbursed.

A perfectly acceptable kitchen can be cheaper than you think. Plan it yourself and get the units from the well known d-i-y stores and arrange to get them fitted by a carpenter.

If you are very lucky you can get good deals on eBay for buying s/h but perfectly acceptable units. You will need a new work top and professional fitting. If the units are of a moderna standard simply replacing the doors can work

[MrsKoala]

I don’t want to derail the thread but my point is that gifts given by people in their 70s can be seen as trying to get rid of assets etc, although they might never need care, they might as so many do now, and then there’s the inheritance tax stuff if it’s within 7 years. The gift to us was given 5 years ago when mil died. She wanted us to have it as her inheritance type thing. Fil was in his 70s but in good health. Then 1 year ago had to go in a home. The costs have been over 6k per month which we’ve had to pay.

[Isleepinahedgefund]

Never spend money on a house you don’t own. Move to another rental with a better kitchen.

[Scarlettpixie]

She then lectured usabout the "state" of the property and if we couldn't keep it tidy she would sell.

Whoever you rent from will do inspections and give you a ‘telling off’ if they don’t like the state of their house.

How bad is the kitchen? Can you fix it up? Would they let you paint the doors, get a new worktop, put some new flooring down? It would only cost a few hundred? Would they share the cost? Kitchens don’t just fall to bits. I also know people who have rented places with no carpets.

In addition to the £100 per month you are saving which until recently appears to have been £150, you have the security of a long term tenancy which can be worth quite a bit. Do you have pets? Finding rentals that accept them can be tricky.

I don’t think you can ask them to sign over the house. They bought it some years back to help your DH who was struggling financially. Some years later and despite no mortgage and maintenance costs you both have bad credit and no savings. It wouldn’t fill them with confidence would it.

As for deliberate deprivation of assets, I think there needs to be evidence that the gift was given in order to avoid care home fees which in this case it seems it would be! Evidence though would be where someones health began to deteriorate and this prompted them to start giving stuff away. If gifts are given in good health and a few years pass, it would be harder for the LA to prove deliberate deprivation, though you may have a fight on.