Can ex H force me to sell the family car during divorce?

[NickiFury]

It's was £20k when bought but probably worth slightly less now, had it a year, fully paid for. He brought it for me and the children as he did not consider my car at the time to be safe, but it's registered in my name. We were separated but not legally when he bought it, but are divorcing now. I am resident parent to our two dc who are both disabled.

Thanks.

I think you were doing exactly what I said and were being disingenuous. So do others on this thread and your last post does nothing to convince me otherwise.

Actually I am glad you came back because you didn't answer my question previously. You said that me ex H obviously had a lot of money when he lived in a HA property. On what grounds did you say that? Why did you make that assumption?

My not me ex

Because you said, your ex was on the tenancy and he bought the car. Worth £20,000! That's a lot of money in most peoples books, so therefore he obviously had a lot of money!
So, in my mind, I was wondering why he would be able to stay in a ha house as I thought you had to be below a certain income or have little or no cash in savings in order to qualify for a house.
I have since learnt that you can be a millionaire and get a ha house.

That's was my question. I thought that you had to be on a low income to qualify for a ha house. That is why I asked that question. You can accuse me of saying or being anything when I did not call you anything, I did not accuse you of anything, I did not comment on whether or not you were or were not entitled to anything. I asked QUESTIONS! because I wanted to know how things worked. I did not deserve to be slated for asking questions. You have been grossly unfair in attacking me by saying I was attacking you, when I was not.

You are still wrong though. He did not have plenty of money when we were together and when we received the tenancy so your point about millionaires and tenancies was and is irrelevant in relation to this particular thread. You stated "he clearly had plenty of money" when you had no grounds whatsoever to think that. I have not been grossly unfair. I found your posts attacking and goady and I definitely perceived them as benefits bashing, not just you attempting to clarify a point that caught your interest as you later claimed. You were called on it and then you backed off, so with all that in mind I will continue to think as I do of you.

I guess we are just going to to agree to disagree.

Of course I have grounds to think that. What did he buy the car with? Scotch mist? Oh no, it was hard cash. Hence my questions!
I was not called on anything. If people are too thick to figure out when someone is trying to understand something they have no experience of knowledge of, that is not my problem.
How you can say I was attacking when I expressly said I was purely asking questions to extend my knowledge? I think you have a chip on your shoulder, for whatever reason, and you are taking it out on me. Whatever, have a go, I am not that bothered. If you can't understand something so basic, I am not going to get any joy trying to explain myself for the fourth time.

I have since learnt that you can be a millionaire and get a ha house.

That's was my question. I thought that you had to be on a low income to qualify for a ha house.

Sunflowers there is a difference between financial circs at the time a tenancy is signed and subsequent improvements in fortune.

Can you really not see that?

No Sunflowers - I shouldn't explain yourself for the 4th time. I should just read all the posts again

It's not surprising that OPs (and others) get frustrated (or aerated in your word Nicki) when they start a thread asking for help. To repeat what another poster has already said...

"The OP has said more then once her financial position (not that she needed too) but you are still going on about benefits, where she has asked about being forced to sell the family car, and her Ex being removed from the tenancy." Other posters have also echoed similar versions saying this.

It's really irritating, and before you know it you're being sucked into giving all your financial details

However lol (yes I said lol!) to Yonic for lightening the mood with gold cars, eating wing mirrors etc!)

I remain unconvinced sunflowers and like I said am happy to agree to disagree.

Now I am off to whip up some hot chocolate in one of my solid gold pans, they're a bit heavy to lift but do add a certain something to the flavour .

Gorgeously in practice very few 'rich' or wealthy or well off people choose to remain in social housing.

The fact is it is very expensive to secure private housing in large parts of the country now, so it takes more than an average income to make the leap.

I certainly don't think Nicki is living high on the hog, despite her gold le crueset, so let's give her a break eh?

Gorg - that is exactly what the Government is now proposing. So that cases like late Bob Crow (husband and wife both in high paid jobs because wages rose over time) would not get subsidised social housing. It is not easy to effect that change however.

The only reason I asked about housing benefit ( a different issue from social housing) was because this is on the legal questions area and I wanted to know what counts. As I posted above you can have £100k of cars if you bought them before you fell on hard times but it is only whether you have £16k+ in cash in the bank that would stop you getting the housing benefit.

Do not try and educate yourself, find out about other people's experiences and how a system works

Sure I agree - I'm all for that. But going on and on and asking questions of someone who is clearly on here to find answers herself can be perceived as being too pushy/nosy and detracts from what she is initially asking.

Sunflowers, Greengrow et al - no as a matter of fact I don't think a Legal Matters topic IS the right place to have a debate or attempt to educate yourself (and that's being very generous and assuming that is genuinely what you were trying to do....). Google is your friend if you have a genuine interest in how the benefits system works.

When someone posts on Legal, Relationships or any of the other topics that are clearly designed for folk to ask questions and seek advice and guidance when they are in a desperate situation, it is distasteful at best, downright nasty at worst, to use their post to make your own petty points.

Start your own thread on Chat, or AIBU, if you are actually interested in a debate.

I think mumsnetters are extraordinarily lucky for the generously provided advice given by the lawyer members every day of the year on the legal threads as you can see from checking against any of our posts. If a thread slightly deflects into another area that is just how the internet is. If you want cuddles and love you post in relationships. if you want a straight answer to a legal question you get it here.

The question was could the the husband force sale of the car. We've answered that and gone as good lawyers always do into the wider issue - woudl owning a £20k rather than £20k in the bank mean she loses her benefits. We have gone above and beyond the call of duty on this thread and deserve praise not criticism.

sunflowers thanks once again for confirming my opinion of you. You sound thoroughly unpleasant and seem to have a strange habit of presenting your opinions as fact despite there being no evidence to support them .

I don't feel particularly bitter and twisted as I drive around in my lovely car and live in my reasonably rented HA accommodation, quite the reverse .

I agree that advice boards are not the place to pick people's posts apart. It's clear that it's a difficult time for me, I wouldn't like to be the kind of person who uses someone else's hard times as an opportunity to satisfy my "curiosity" regarding how they came to be in that situation but clearly there are some that do.

Greengrow my question was answered in the second post. I am unable to find anything that I should be praising you or others of your ilk on this thread for .

what opinions did i present? please do quote me where i posted an opinion on your situation.

Interestingly, those of you who claim to have such a thirst for knowledge and to be focussed on the legalities of all this don't seem to have much time for the boring old question of how to get my ex off the tenancy that he refuses to remove himself from. TONS of interest in possible savings both past and present, my entitlement to run a nice car AND live in a HA property and what the benefits agency might have to say about that, but very little interest in a bullying man forcing his ex wife to live knowing he could move back in at anytime and there's nothing she can do about it.

Thanks to those who did address that .

sunflowers you keep saying you're leaving the thread. Why don't you? I don't particularly want to be having this discussion with you, I don't value anything you have said and have repeatedly said so. Obviously stick around if you must but I won't engage with you anymore.

Greengrow, 'capital' is assessed as any money you have in the bank, savings, share, stocks etc. Not what possessions you own, whatever opinion anyone may have on that. So yes, it is perfectly possible to own a nice car, a large house or a chest full of gold - and you can't be forced to sell it before you are allowed to claim benefits.

I have been told, by ex-benefits colleagues, of days gone by when the rules were different. Of how the local inspector would come round to your house and check what you owned, and insist you had to sell anything deemed 'unnecessary' before you were given any state help. Women abandoned by their husbands, being told they couldn't get any help because they owned four dining chairs and there were only three people in the house... or they owned two plates more than people, so tough luck lady. Is that really what people suggest we go back to? Really?

Also, what kind of man even suggests that their disabled childrens' only transport is sold, so that he can profit? OP, I hope that it doesn't come to this, but I can't imagine a court would ever order this?

Exactly. I didn't. So don't accuse if you can't back it up with facts which you would have surely done if you could. Point made.

It has always been the case that our benefits system "favours" spenders rather than savers Greengrow I am quite old and its certainly been the case as far as I can remember.

Of course there are always be people (whether they claim benefits or not) who will spend whatever money they get on stuff and those who are more cautious and save/pay off the mortgage etc and a whole pile of people in between.

I am on balance a financially astute saver but have still managed to benefit from the system in times when I have really needed it. Of course if I'd spend all my savings more enthusiastically I'd have have qualified for benefits on more occasions.

To be honest I am quite happy with this, when I have been ill and unable to work it has been a real relief to know that I have sufficient savings for it to not be an imminent disaster. I'd prefer that to the horrible feeling of worrying whether your benefit claim is going to be sorted soon enough for you to have the money to pay the food bill for the week.

I'm confused why you think gold would not count as an "investment", a certain amount would be allowed as personal property but I would be amazed if £30,000 of gold wouldn't be counted as an investment which certainly needs to be declared.

Anyone who buys a car for £290,000 for qualify for benefits probably need some serious financial planning help as the depreciation on the car as soon as they drive it off the forecourt would be significantly more than any benefit they could claim in this country.

Sorry OP thats more than a bit irrelevant to your situation.

Chest of gold would in all likelihood be deemed an investment roomba

Gold is a common form of investment because it appreciates in value. Jewellery is not a good form of investment because so much of what you pay for is labour costs and profit. But if you have enough of it, it would probably still count.

Most personal possessions don;t appreciate.

I could back it up but can't be bothered. Your posts stand and speak for themselves so I don't need to.