Bastard retirement village payments

[Makemineamediumone]

Can't sell it as no-one wants it. Can't rent it as not allowed. Not using it as live elsewhere. Still have to pay the bastarding service charge EVEN THOUGH THE HOUSE WAS INHERITED and watching the equity slip away. Fucking bastarding money grabbing bastards.

@Whiskyinajar
One son reaches this position with his mother’s flat (deceased). As he couldn’t afford to keep his own home, he simply moved in one day to his mothers flat. Refused to move. It went to court and he was evicted and the flat was removed by court order from his possession and handed over to the management of the block to sell.
It wasn’t a m and S development. Whole process took around 18 months. Made the papers!

@MurielSpriggs agreed it is bullying. But they are a huge company and we are just mere walking wallets to be shaken by them.
As I said, we were lucky and got it sold very cheaply, the upside being they for a lot less back as their percentage than they were banking on.
But monies are still chased with the threat of courts, bailiffs and ccjs. Not something most people want in their lives. Saying it’s unfair etc doesn’t change the reality.

My Dad had to move very quickly from his house when his LL's gave notice and we found him a flat in a retirement complex. It would have been £120k to buy (which we could have done for him) but the service charges were nearly £450 a month. He rents the same flat for £550 a month, so it was a no brainer really. He's been there 5 years, and although we were warned that the flat was on the market, he's never had a viewing during that time so hopefully it's safe.

They really are such horrors to sell on, I'm really sorry you're in this position.

For those looking to have oncall people around, bear in mind that these places are not ideal for those who actually need more care, any care is paid for by the people, and they do try and get rid of you if your care needs increase, have known that. Also eventually M&S do pass on the management to other companies, so things can change and not a lot you can do about it
I keep telling people to not touch them with a bargepole.

We have sold now but it took 2 years! I think it would be much better if more were available to rent - although, of course, they would still be expensive with the service charges.

@bilbodog. Renting would definitely be better once you’ve reached that/ a certain stage in life.
Glad you’ve sold!!

Unless the beneficiary of the deceased fits the requirements of the develo(or over the relevant age threshold), the. They can’t take over ownership of the lease, and even after probate it remains an estate asset with the estate responsible for outgoings.
The other sting in the tail with these is that you really don’t want to develop a major illness or dementia- they can throw you out of your home under the terms of some of the leases - if your dementia involves what might construe antisocial behaviour (eg shouting out loud / swearing), they can forfeit the lease after a number of reports from other residents, and then the dementia sufferer has to find somewhere new to live without a penny realised from the flat (happened with a friend’s mother; neighbour in the development complained repeatedly and they chucked her out and forfeited the lease)

@DuckyMcDuck

I agree with pp who have said that they can be a lifesaver when elderly people are left on their own and it's their money etc but it can be a problem if someone develops dementia for example and has to move, probably into a (very expensive) nursing home. If their capital is tied up in the flat which they can't sell, then the nursing fees of possibly £1,000 a WEEK are likely to fall onto their relatives.

This happened to 2 of my Mum's friends family and nearly broke them both.

Just for anyone reading worried about this - this should not be the case. If someone has been assessed as needing to pay full cost of their fees because they have a property, but they can’t sell the property, they can usually enter into a Deferred Payment Agreement with the council whereby council will be pay fees then recover them when property is sold. Not everyone is eligible but it’s usually an option.

@Bargebill19

But monies are still chased with the threat of courts, bailiffs and ccjs. Not something most people want in their lives. Saying it’s unfair etc doesn’t change the reality.

Just to clarify, because I still think we might be missing each other here, I'm not saying that it's unfair. That suggests that it's all very unfortunate, but what can you do, sometimes you just have to roll with the punches.

I'm saying that their threats are empty and unenforceable and can be safely ignored. If your name is not on the lease you do not owe them a penny. If you pay them that's very nice of you, and certainly helps out their business model. But if you pay anyone who demands money without considering whether their demand has any legal force, there are various dodgy African princesses, employees of obscure banks and discoverers of hidden hordes of used banknotes who would love to have your email address!

@MurielSpriggs

No we are not misunderstanding each other. But you are misunderstanding the realities of the situation regarding these developments.
The demands are real and enforceable. Pay up or face the consequences. You can’t defer them. Sorry but that the fact. Would absolutely love it to be the other way, but it isn’t otherwise these business models would absolutely fall flat on their faces. It would also be lovely if what you said actually worked as then people would be faced with having to reduce the price of them to peanuts. I’ve seen some on the market as low as £25k in Manchester they were that desperate to get rid due to escalating costs.

@Bargebill19
No we are not misunderstanding each other.

Well I'm that case we have a fundamental disagreement on a very simple point of law!

The demands are real and enforceable. Pay up or face the consequences. You can’t defer them.

I've no doubt that the demands are real. But (until the flat is in your name and you have accepted responsibity) they are not enforceable against you. They are enforceable against the estate. I can categorically assure you (and so could any first-year law student) that you cannot be required, forced or sued into paying someone else's debts, even if that person was your relative and even if they can no longer pay because they are six feet under! Unless the lease has been assigned to you (which requires your signature) they are someone else's debts. This is not some idealistic aspiration, or some ivory-tower piece of legal theory. That's a basic principle of privity of contract! "Business models" cannot override it.

If what you say is true, then what you're describing as the realities of the situation are actually what you've been persuaded into believing by being bullied. (I think that is is fact their business model.)

Anyway we do seem to be going round and round in circles, and I don't know how better to persuade you that the law is on your side if you don't want to believe it. But it might be useful to others who find themselves in the same situation.

(Maybe third-year to be fair ... )

You obviously do not know that you do have to sign to agree to keep payments going even after death and they are not able to be out on hold. It’s a legal contract. So yes you end up paying.
But feel free to think you know better.

@Bargebill19

You obviously do not know that you do have to sign to agree to keep payments going even after death and they are not able to be out on hold. It’s a legal contract. So yes you end up paying. But feel free to think you know better.

Who signs?

The deceased? Contract dies with them.

The beneficiaries? There are none till estate has been distributed - and apparently there's no problem with keeping an estate undistributed for many years (which I wasn't aware of and is very useful for others to know).

My late MIL lived in a retirement flat (with warden during office hours and a care line out of hours). It was the best thing she could have done and gave her family so much peace of mind.

She has let a suitable family member (suitable as in old enough!) have life rent after her death so another family member is safe.

These flats sell ok, are in an amazing location but an absolute fraction of the price of new build equivalents. MIL paid £82,000 - new build equivalents in the city (not even in as nice an area!) are selling for £250,000 to £300,000!!!

We had to sign on behalf of mil as we had poa, contract doesn’t die with the estate. They insisted on what is basically a guarantor. Exactly the same as some care homes do.
Please stop telling me what I know has happened and does happen is wrong. Morally it is. Legally it isn’t.
And no I don’t give bank details to Nigerian princes etc etc.
Good luck with keeping estates in distributes when you have other beneficiaries wanting their inheritance.
We had to sell as we had care home fees to pay and mil didn’t have millions in the bank - so it had to go. I’ve said this upthread. Even if she has died in situ, we still would have had the inheritors wanting their money. So a bad idea to heap yet more pain on top of a crappy situation.
As I said we sold for peanuts - so the developers didn’t get the layout from the sale they were budgeting for. Yes we knew what they wanted as it’s part of the financial
budget distributed to all home owners annually. Happy now?! Anyone would think you lot are m and s!!

Right so you were the guarantor. If you'd have said so right at the beginning that would have saved a lot of posts! Not all places require a guarantor - MIL's M and S place didn't - not that she bought it in the end (another thread!)

And I agree such places are awful - I'm so glad she didn't end up in one.

I think we're lucky too at the annual service charges - just around £3,600 pa, paid in 2 lump sums. Person living there saves up to pay this charge.

No other property charge, just council tax, utilities and normal bills associated with life.

Also the age you can move into these flats is 55 so there's a much greater number of people that can buy them.

@titchy
A) no one asked
B) those in this predicament know how it works already
C) a certain poster who thinks they have better legal knowledge didn’t even ask the most basic of questions. 😳
D) you only just decided to join in the party.

@SciFiScream

It sounds like the charge is lower as is the age barrier because it’s catering for a different demographic. There are different schemes offering different levels of services, so you get retirement complexes, sheltered housing, retirement plus, living plus, living well, retirement villages just to name a few of the different concepts and plans. - all are offering ever so slightly different things, some have shops, restaurants, hairdressers and some don’t. They all have different age barriers as well ! Minefield. But basically less services lower charges.

This property has a warden, a care line out of hours, a communal lounge and 2 lifts. That's it! Nothing fancy.
The running of the property was also sold to a housing association in the last few years.

I think I got the age wrong, DH informs me it's 60 - but still, more people to buy at 60 versus over 75.

There's people living there who have been there for 20,30 years. They now have carers going in.

Each flat is tiny. Really tiny, but enough for an older person or a couple.

[quote Bargebill19]@titchy
A) no one asked
B) those in this predicament know how it works already
C) a certain poster who thinks they have better legal knowledge didn’t even ask the most basic of questions. 😳
D) you only just decided to join in the party.[/quote]
No need to be arsey 

It was a fairly crucial piece of information that won't apply to everyone so your posts were potentially misleading. The other poster was simply explaining basic contract law - as you didn't mention that you were in fact party to that contract it was perfectly reasonable to assume you weren't.

And this is MN - anyone can post at any time. Late to a thread or not.

Not arsey. Just fed up being told by others I know nothing about a particular subject I know far too much about, from personal experience and advocating for others in two complexes.
A certain poster banging on about something that didn’t even apply to our situation and then you jumping in is uncalled for.
I made it quite clear that mil did not die in the development. So your advice on contract law most certainly did not apply. Had you or the other poster even bothered to read them, you would have known that.
The so called crucial bit of information about our own contract didn’t apply AS SHE DID NOT DIE THERE. So didn’t apply!
No drip feed etc etc. No missing information
as it didn’t apply and no one asked.

Wow, it's moved on a lot! I've no idea what will happen when I simply can't pay. I don'tt know if they will ultimately persue bankruptcy. It's do bloody stressful. I spoke to them earlier today and they weren't interested in buy back at all but did say the last one they bought back they paid in the region of 25k. I agree when the person is alive it's a great set up, it just seems so unfair that I am paying for the service charge...It's feels like it's one of those horrific multi generational mortgages. I'm going to go and look up the money box programme now.

Ok I'm showing my ignorance but why was her place of death relevant? Surely the relevant info was that when she bought the property you signed as guarantor. Why did her being elsewhere become the key differentiator for contract purposes?

Genuine question, might be helpful to others in similar circumstances.

Because the guarantor bit would have kicked in if she died whilst living at the development or if we had failed to sell before she died in the care home and still owned the property.
As she was still alive and owned the property she was still legally responsible for paying the service and ground rent and other associates costs for the development. (Despite not benefiting from any of them).
I made this very very very clear. Certain posters decided to ignore this.
So, the contract law they are going on about wouldn’t apply and didn’t apply and still doesn’t apply at certain developments. But they think they still know better despite being told several times they don’t.