to be disgusted at having to pay fees for a deceased family member

[LK2610]

I’d really appreciate any advice you can give. Our lovely grandad passed away 1 year ago. He lived in a block of ‘supported’ apartments for the elderly. Unfortunately my parents are struggling to sell his flat due to the slow housing market. It’s been empty for almost a year.

The thing that shocks me is that my mum is still having to pay a full monthly service charge for the apartment, even though it’s empty. It’s costing hundreds of pounds a month and soon my grandad’s estate will have run out of money. The building managers refuse to let my mum have a discount on the charges, even though half of the things my grandad obviously can’t use.

This charge includes things like water, electricity, TV licence, daily food in the restaurant, cleaning, 24/hour support, emergency call system - obviously he’s no longer using these things.

She’ll also soon have to pay full council tax on the flat because she can no longer benefit from the 1 person discount because my grandad is no longer here. This shocked me the most. It feels so insensitive, like a punishment for him not being here.

I’m sad that she’s being forced to pay all this money at such a difficult time (she’s still very upset) that she and my dad could have, as I’m sure my grandad would have wanted.

Has anyone else been in a similar situation? I’ve suggested she gets legal advice but that’s more costly and she’s in her 70s so it’s quite stressful for her.

I can however know what is typical.

And know that the remaining service charge (not including separate fees for additional and therefore cancellable services) remain high.

What are the rules on teh lease, I'd Air BnB it, but i bet thats not allowed!

There have been so many press pieces about this that I’m well aware of it - and I don’t know anyone who even owns one!
It’s all in the contract, and if he wasn’t cognitively sharp enough to read it, whoever helped him with the purchase should have read it. Your mum needs to price the property at what it’s worth, and get it sold.

Those flats cannot be occupied by anyone under the age specified, whether permanently or temporarily. So AirBnb wouldn't be allowed for that reason as well as any others. Likewise a pp's suggestion of an adult grandchild living in it.
That's what makes the things so next to impossible to sell. The new McCarthy Stone place that's opening near my daughter is for 70+ only, for goodness sake. Trying to resell that when you have to rule out anyone who's 60-69, depletes the market even more than the average retirement village.

Surely in the UK there's the option of refusing the inheritance?

What happens if you start using what you’re paying for but not currently getting? So demanding the meals are taken to the house - you could always eat them or put them on Olio. Using the washing machine, tumble dryers, facilities as they’re being paid for. Could one of you move in to fully get the money’s worth? Make it difficult for them they’re more likely to negotiate with you.

How much has the price been dropped in the year it has been empty?

@aurynne you can indeed “disclaim” an inheritance, but I suspect that (1) it’s too late here and (2) there’s no need. Chances are this property is owned outright, going by OP not mentioning a mortgage and older people often having equity from a sale to do this.

That means, the OP’s mother can sell it for what it’s actually worth and still be quids in.

People who buy these properties need to wake up to the fact it’s not a “normal” situation. In the U.K. we always expect to make money from property. But for these retirement homes, it’s just a different scenario. It’s more like when you buy a brand new car. You might do that for peace of mind on repairs. But you know going into the purchase that you’re losing money as soon you drive off the forecourt. And that’s fine: eyes wide open.

The loss of value was never a problem for the person living in this property - it suited their needs. The person inheriting needs to accept that their benefactor chose their own convenience and needs in life, over cash to leave. Just sell it now for what it’s worth, the stress and outgoing goes away, and you’re still £ up.

The management company would sue the estate for the money owed. And probably win, as it's undoubtedly a contractual agreement.

@aurynne was suggesting that the alleged inheritance of a house with a 50k mortgage on that the heir could not pay be disclaimed, not the OP’s grandfather’s house.

I say alleged because it was a highly implausible anecdote.

My comment was more a way to say that the OP's mum is not really "having to pay for her dad's serviced apartment" and lose "her" money. It was her dad's decision to put HIS money (while he was alive) in a property that suited his own needs, as he has all the right in the world to do. This decision would have come with the knowledge that it effectively meant most or all of his money would be absorbed by the costs and probably end in no money left for inheritance as he became older and more infirm and needed more care. This decision also freed his family from having to provide this care, which for me makes it fair that his money goes to the company which actually provided the care.

If the apartment was such a money-sucker, then for me the most logical thing to do at the time of the man's death would have been to reject the inheritance.

If his family did not do that, then I assume it was because there was enough money in the estate that dealing with the money-sucking serviced apartment was worth it, even if it solf for a pittance.

But criticising the man for choosing to spend his own money in the way that suited him most during the years when he needed help does not sound right to me here just because someone feels entitled to his money.

Again, lots of assumptions on my side with very little info, but this is an online forum after all where opinions of strangers are sought.

even though half of the things my grandad obviously can’t use.

Surely all of the things, not half 🤔 It sounds like a horrible situation either way, thought people’s ongoing obligations died with them.

thought people’s ongoing obligations died with them.

His estate still owns the flat though & is responsible for any bills it incurs until sold.

Taking out life insurance is a contractual part of taking out a mortgage for precisely this reason.

Except it's not. I've never had life insurance when I've had a mortgage.

I've been investigating these types of property for a relative recently

Mcarthy & Stone
Brand new flats
300k to buy
Service charges
Utilities still need to be paid
They offer to help the person move in with removal company
Age restrictions
Leasehold
The sales team only promote the good parts

Second hand Mcarthy & Stone flats nearby are 100k

I am aware that cannot rent out their empty properties
I am aware of service charges for their empty properties

Decided to look at freeholds instead

Buyer beware

I've had free life insurance via my employer for years

No it's not
Not all mortgages

@KingsleyBorder
If the assets are 40k and the outstanding debt is 50k the person becomes "bankrupt" at the time of death as the full debt is due.
Therefore there is no assets to pass to anyone and no inheritance due to anyone.

It is possible that this can even happen to regular property when property market falls.
I know someone who had bought a home just before the last crash so they has a high loan to the original market value of the property. The market value fell below the amount of the loan and for a number of years but they were able to make all the loan payments on time. if they had died during that period the bank would have gotten the house and still be owed for the drop in the market price.

aurynne was* *not correct in the "heirs" rights/ability to do anything as the bank had first and sole claim on the asset.

If there is assets/ value in the estate there is no obligation to accept but the OP thinks that the sale will result in money being available heirs. The OP's family need to accept that the market price is much less than the original price.

And as they hold off selling asap they risk that other properties become available in the complex which would lead to further price drops.

Probably more like a "death in service benefit" which cannot be assigned to your mortgage. It is paid in trust and separate to your estate. So you could leave your estate to person A, and your death in service to person B, but if person A inherits a property with a debt (and no assets) the money person B gets cannot be compelled to pay that off.

But, as the death in service is paid in trust, by trustees, your wishes are only taken into consideration by them on where to pay it. Obviously they usually pay it to the nominees you asked for. But in the above scenario, if person A was a dependent and person B was, say, your neighbour, the trustees may decide to pay all or some of it to person A.

OP, another way to look at this is that, in the past, your grandfather benefitted from other people continuing to pay for communal charges even if they weren't using those services

He will have signed a contract with that in. Legally you dont have a leg to stand on. I know. Happened with my mums flat. Took 2 years to sell!

But surely this shouldn’t apply to food costs?!

I'm sorry but this is what is stated in the lease when you purchase the property. Why would you expect the other leaseholders have to pay more because your grandfather has died. The service charge covers the maintenance, insurance and repairs of the building and grounds and the staff needed to do this. These costs remain the same regardless of the number of people living there. All this will of been explained by the solicitor when buying the property. On my property a percentage of the selling price will also be payable to both the management company and landlord at the point of sale.

Yes this is standard and would have be discussed before any contracts signed. It’s a really shit situation.