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?

I'll save my sympathy for those in genuine hardship!

£80,000 wouldn't even serve as a deposit where I live. We would need around £130,000 before mortgage.

And 40 grand she has hidden away!

No she's not in hardship she is feckless - she has squandered £40k!

She has chosen this path - she decided to put her children's needs for a house over their head at risk! Disgraceful!

Oh, yes, my heart bleeds.

Especially because she hid £40,000 away. And believe you me, she can get it back.

It may cost her, in cancellation fees and penalties, but hey, actions have consequences.

Blowing £40,000 and hiding away another £40k isn't a hardship, it's a choice.

I can't think of any place where you wouldn't be able to rent a decent flat privately with £40,000 to hand.

I'm a housing manager for a London council. Your X-SIL automatically succeeds to the tenancy if 1. she lived at the flat as her only or principal home for at least 12 months continuously prior to the tenant's death AND 2. there has not already been a succession. If X-SIL's mother was once a joint tenant (eg with husband) and the partner died, then the succession has already taken place, so your X-SIL can't succeed. This is all covered by the Housing Act 1985, section 87, and the Council's website should have more details.

If she's not a successor then she has no right to remain at the property. The Council would have a duty to assess her and her family as homeless and may have a statutory duty to house the family, and they will put the family in temporary accommodation until they decide, and then (if accepted) until she gets a permanent tenancy. Most Councils don't use B&B any more so temp accommodation will probably be in a furnished flat, though it won't be the best block/estate in town. It might be a private flat leased by the Council for use as temporary accommodation.

Councils don't have to means test for housing applications, though some do. All Councils have to publish their allocations policy and housing criteria, so look on their website. Most Councils offer help of some kind to those who don't qualify for housing, such as landlord and tenant advice or even loans for the cost of a deposit, so it's worth asking what they offer.

She really needs advice and in my experience solicitors and law centres are better and more accessible than CABs. Good luck, I hope the family will be OK whatever happens.

If she put the money in trust for the kids, she CANNOT get it back. It's in a trust, and that's a legal device whereby it no longer belongs to her: it now belongs to them. That's irrevocable. You might as well say that you can get back a house you sold someone, because it was yours once. I'm not justifying her idiocy with the money, I'm just saying that a trust can't be broken if the person who created in changes their mind later. It's already been given away and the kids are now the beneficiaries of that cash. Trusts were originally used when women couldn't own property, so that they could benefit from their father's cash without their husband taking it away. Neither father nor husband could get their mitts on it again, and nor can this mother unless she persuades the trustees to let her buy somewhere in the kids' name with it - and on 40 grand I'm not sure how she'd afford that. I live in Cambridge, near Haverhill, and our 2 bed cost us 210,000 three years ago, when it needed gutting and refurbishing completely. My mother lives in Birmingham and you'd be hard pushed to find a 1 bed flat for under 100 grand, either. So those house price figures seem decidedly odd, frankly - Rightmove certainly doesn't have anything like them.

I can understand why people are frustrated, thinking that she possibly hid or stashed the money in trust. But isn't it just possible she was TRYING to be a responsible parent and put the money aside for her children for their future (such as for future university fees), figuring that she would be fine with the remaining £40K and simply is a poor money manager? Yes, £40K is a lot of money. Yes, she probably spent it foolishly. But let's be realistic. Many of us have spent money foolishly at some point in our lives, even when we can't afford it. Perhaps it is not that she is scheming, but simply young and foolish and has now learned a valuable lesson. Regardless of how it happened, the boys are certainly not to blame, so hopefully she can either succeed the tenancy or can be placed somewhere else right away.

Situation is her own making.

She will hopefully be offered a list of housing association accommodation or private rented.

Maybe she should get a job.

Can your brother not house them temporarily until they find somewhere else?

Great advice, housingofficer.

Those house prices are ridiculous - a 4 bed house in Hove for £27 grand?

I'll have two....

There are other people out there who have been on the housing list for many years through no fault of their own. Why should someone jump the queue simply because she no longer has a substantial sum of money which was allocated to her specifically so that she could rehouse herself and her two children?

There's frittering money and then there's frittering £40K in under two years. Poor money manager or not, this does not give her the right to bump some other family from the top of the housing list.

I'm sorry Triggles but i think a feeble excuse 'But isn't it just possible she was TRYING to be a responsible parent and put the money aside for her children for their future (such as for future university fees)' the children are 6 & 4 and yes in a ideal world having money available to save so our children can go to university.

The choice between having a home now for my children and putting the money aside for something which may or may not happen in 12 or 14 years is not being a responsible parent. As a responsible parent i would want a secure home for my children now and worry about university fees nearer the time.

I'm sure there are ways of ringfencing the £40K or £80K if her circumstances change so her children are protected.

hang on though

she has spent 20k over 2 years? (given half was on business venture which prob could be discounted)

That is 10k a year. Thats not excessive.

Assuming she declared this and didn't also claim benefits whie she was over the saving threshold (she could be in serious trouble if so), that seems quite reasonable.

I don't really see how she has made herself intentionally homeless, tbh, but may be missing something.

oh and another option is of course just to get private accomodation - the council may have a bond scheme, though round here its not open to families

I would be suprised if this level of expenditure was seen as deprivation of capital, PROVIDING she hasn't claimed benefits

but it occurs to me that I have no idea how trust funds are viewed. I suspect that it might be ok if it followed a divorce but thats just a hunch. (I don't think ANY of my clients EVER has a trust fund )

she could have gone out o work and EARNED some money in the last 2 years ??? no

agree with Bree and expat; the sense of 'entitlement' is ridiculous.

Do feel sorry for the kids tho'...

lemonstartree - I agree - lots of folk seem to have forgotten about the kids in this - its sad that they should be suffering because of decisions their mum has made.

Assuming the best intentions (and I have no reason to think otherwise) you could say that she took a reasonable risk.

If the business venture had succeeded presumably she'd have been praised for her sensible handling of the money. Especially as the 80K wasn't anywhere near enough to buy a house with anyway.

The trust fund is money that's safe no matter what, even from her which was presumably her intention

I want to know where all these houses for 25K etc are. Unless that was an april fool thing.

oh there are two things getting mixed up here though

the moral argument

and

the legal argument

I do think there might be a duty to house, even if she doesn't have a right to suceeed the tennancy.

she also quite possibly has a right to claim benefits. you are not expected to live at benefit levels to avoid intentional deprivation of capital situations.

but I am talking about a legal right, not a moral right. cos the legal side is rather more interesting imo

legal right = there is none.

Im making alot of presumptions in this post BUT if the mum was claiming HB and other benefits and declared her daughter was moving in then i think the council would have stopped or cut her benefits as her daughter would have been expected to contribute to the rent and bills. Benefits would certainly not have been paid if it had been declared Exsil was living at the house. I know my mums house was paid for by HB as she was disabled and when my niece moved in she had to pay towards the rent and was named on the tenancy which is why the council had to rehome her BUt she could not have stayed in my mums house because it was 3 bedrooms and Neice did not need that size house, she was eventually rehomed in a 2 bed after 4 months.

So we know there are no legal rights because she and mum fiddled the benefits
That IS quite an assumption

"Benefits would certainly not have been paid if it had been declared Exsil was living at the house"

no this isn't true at all.

depends on individual circumstances, but would not normally affect income support etc anyway.