to think the council should not throw my young nephews out onto the street?

[Lookingforinfo]

OK I confess at the start I am looking for info, rather than comments on reasonableness, but I wasn't sure where else to post.

This all started when my X-SIL was most definately being unreasonable herself.... my DB gave her all the equity from the house when they got divorced (80K) so that she could buy a small flat for her & the kids (4 & 6 YO). Instead of doing this she moved into her mum's council house and put half the money into trust for the kids (it is now locked up until they are 18 and she can't get it back). The remainder was frittered away over a couple of years (half going on a failed business idea).

Anyway, her mum died recently and the council have now told her that it is her own fault that she doesn't have any money left and she is not allowed to stay in the council house. They have told her she must move out and move into B&B accomodation (which she then needs to claim for from the council). My DB can't help any more because he is flat broke (and he has nowhere himself where he could take the children).

Can the council do this? And does this sound plausible (my XSIL is by all accounts going spare about it all so I guess it is true and not just a ruse for more money from DB)? What should she do? If she just refuses to leave the council house, will it all go to court and will she be kicked out anyway? I would be the first to say that she has been very very stupid to do this with the money (and I am sure that putting some of it in trust was probably a deliberate ploy to avoid 'wasting it on rent') but that is by the by, she is where she is and I don't really know what the council expect her to do (they seem to think she can magic the money back). I am very that my nephews are in this position and don't know what to advise DB to do..... any ideas?

But why should someone who has frittered away £40,000 have priority over someone else who may have been on the housing list for 7.5 years??? Because that is what you are effectively saying. If you were still on the housing list and found out that she'd been given her mother's tenancy in these circumstances, would you still feel the same way?

Why not let some other family who's currently stuffed into a B&B or split up whilst the man goes into hostel that won't allow women in children and who've been on the list longer to move into the house as they didn't fritter away £40K and stash a further £40K away when it was given to her as part of divorce agreement for hte purpose of housing herself and her children?

Sorry, but I don't see why she should be bumped to the top of the list or allowed to keep the house if she's on right to it when she had the means to house herself otherwise.

It isn't her family home. It belongs to the local authority (or housing association) and she has only lived there for a relatively short time with her mother's permission. It's not as if she's lived there most of her life and is being chucked out on the streets.

i think im agreeing with the private rental idea its v wrong she can fritter away 40 grand and have 40 grand 'locked away' in her chidrens names .....your db must be v understanding......incidentally i wonder if hed have a better chance of council housing if he had custody? or is that out of the uestion?

Going slightly off the point but how can you "lock away" 40 grand in childrens accounts? Thought there was strict limits on how much you could give to dependants per year. Does this not mean that anyone can "lock away" their own savings in childrens accounts and then be able to claim all benefits?

'Does this not mean that anyone can "lock away" their own savings in childrens accounts and then be able to claim all benefits? '

Then everyone would be doing it.

Seriously, if you've ever filled out one of those forms, there's not a whole lot they don't ask you and that you must prove to the best of your ability. And, of course, they include that clause at the end that you sign under that says if you haven't been entirely truthful or forthcoming then you're committing a crime.

Frittering away money and locking some away when you were given it as part of a divorce agreement for purposes of housing yourself isn't the same as losing your job, not being able to pay the rent and thus becoming homeless and the like.

I don't thnk there is any way that she could "lock-away" any money without having access to it. I remember DD1 needing to get to £35,000 that she had "locked-away" for 15 years (2 years after she had done so"). She went into the bank, who after a few telephone calls, simply cancelled the account right back to the date she opened it and gave her the money - she did loose any accred interest, but part of the 'deal' had been that the money had to stay in the account for the 15 years before she would receive the interest.

That's not the bottom line, though, because if they find that you intentionally created yoru financial predicament they're not under obligation to house you or provide you with benefits.

She needs to find out what her council's policy is on inheriting tenancies, because it varies, and as someone pointed out, if the mother went on claiming single discount then there's some other issues as well.

Having £80,000 to buy a flat and choosing to move into someone elses home whilst blowing half the money and 'hiding' the rest doesnot say 'fuck-up' to me - it smacks of a deliberate choice

I am sure the boys would have liked a roof over their head rather than £20,000 each at 18.

Yes would have thought the best thing would be to "unlock" the remaining 40 grand and use it as was intended -to house herself and children. Surely 40 grand would be enough to set herself up in private rented?

But the difference is, it was £80,000 of equity as part of divorce agreement for the purpose of her housing herself and her children.

Those things are usually written up at one point or another in the agreement, so teh court can see division of assets.

She didn't use the money given to her to house herself and her children as part of a divorce agreement to do that.

Instead, she blew it and hid it.

And believe me, the council will find out about it.

And if she doesn't put it down on the forms, it's potentially a crime.

Unfortunate for the children, but not the problem of the council.

I bloody hate this entitled mindset that this country seems to have embraced.

I'd certainly step aside on the priority list and continue living with my family in a B&B for a person who blew and hid £80,000 to live in the council house I was on the list because she just lost her mum and the tenancy wasn't even hers, especially when I knew there was still £40,000 'locked away' somewhere.

NOT.

Kerrymum - a lot of people do make bad choices in life at some point (not everybody though) - they also have to live with the consequences

Here, here, Bree!

You probably could in my area.

It would certainly pay a hell of a lot of rent.

In some regions, certainly.

You can also get shared-ownership ones.

And you don't have to own.

Plenty of us are in privately rented accommodation and waiting on housing lists because we can't afford to buy.

It's not a right.

A house in the Uk for £80,000 - result of a 5 min search;

3 bed house - newcastle-upon-Tyne £25,625
4 bed house - Hove £27,500
3 bed house - South Yorksire £28,000
2 bed house - S. Yorkshire £29,000
2 bed house - Hull £30,000
3 bed house - Lancashire £30,000
3 bed house - Middleborough £35,000
3 bed house - Birmingham £36,238
3 bed house - Portsmouth £39,995
4 bed house - Haverhill £41,250 (new build)

etc etc etc

wow where I live, you can't get a bedsit for £80,000 let alone a 4 bed new build!!