Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Original poster

Bastard retirement village payments

214 replies

Makemineamediumone · 13/07/2021 21:13

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.

OP posts:
Original poster
Makemineamediumone · 14/07/2021 20:15

As for being the next misselling scandal, that'd be jnteresting as for purpose theyrr often ideal but the carry over isnt

OP posts:
titchy · 14/07/2021 20:23

@Bargebill19

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.
Thanks for clarifying. To summarise - it was the fact that you were the guarantor that meant you were liable then yes? Maybe I missed you posting that - apologies if so.

Presumably if someone isn't a guarantor (like I said, the Mc and S development MIL nearly bought didn't ask for a guarantor) then as long as the property remains within the undistributed estate there is sweet FA that Mc and S etc can do.

Clearly there may be other issues with not distributing an estate for many years but in theory it's a possible way to avoid this situation.

Which I think is vital that people are aware of when considering elderly care.

Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 20:24

Op there was an investigation done by a documentary a good few years ago. BBC??Nothing has really changed. Some residents have been able to throw out the management and become self managed. But very very few. It’s a long and probably expensive process.
Personally I think either the business model
will implode as the market is saturated and the next generation of pensioners are nowhere near as financially well off, so won’t be able to meet the costs.
Which would be a shame as they are a very good concept. A bit of tweaking of the business model and I think the problems with the carry over could be diminished and in turn encourage more people to purchase.
But It seems nothing will change.

Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 20:25

No I wasn’t liable because mil didn’t die whilst owning it - it’s a non point. Others in the development and other developments have been caught. NOT US.

Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 20:28

Not distributing an estate isn’t really an option - you can be taken to court for not doing so. Lifted from a legal publication.

“When an executor mismanages the estate by not distributing assets to you as required under the will, you have the following options: File a petition with the court to remove the executor. ... Seek to have the executor held in contempt of court. File a civil lawsuit against the executor to recover your assets.”

Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 20:28

The assets to a developer would be the fees they are owed.

titchy · 14/07/2021 20:35

@Bargebill19

No I wasn’t liable because mil didn’t die whilst owning it - it’s a non point. Others in the development and other developments have been caught. NOT US.
Ok so IF MIL was still the owner at death, and you the guarantor, then you'd have been liable. As others in the development are finding out?

Sorry to hammer the point but I think it's really important that people are very very clear on this.

titchy · 14/07/2021 20:37

@Bargebill19

Not distributing an estate isn’t really an option - you can be taken to court for not doing so. Lifted from a legal publication.

“When an executor mismanages the estate by not distributing assets to you as required under the will, you have the following options: File a petition with the court to remove the executor. ... Seek to have the executor held in contempt of court. File a civil lawsuit against the executor to recover your assets.”

Yes I understand this. But if the beneficiaries all agree not to distribute the estate until the property has sold then that's a way round it. (And a carefully written will that doesn't leave any other residual beneficiaries.)
Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 20:39

Yes but we would have been anyway as you point about contract law is invalid. You cannot just decide to not distribute the estate in any way for very long. The development would still have wanted their share. Plus costs would be added on. So yes people pay. ( see latest posts about estates and non distribution.) They can force you to. Feel free to argue with the co-op legal team.

Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 20:39

No it’s not it really isn’t.

Twoforthree · 14/07/2021 20:41

If there is such a demand for new ones, I can’t understand why no one wants to buy these “bargains”

Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 20:42

And not sure how you think you can distribute an estate without selling when that’s all there is in the estate.
But still a moot point as it didn’t happen!

So yeah stop hammering the non point into the ground.

Original poster
Makemineamediumone · 14/07/2021 20:42

Their legal teams are brutal. My one started referencing High Court cases.

OP posts:
Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 20:45

@Twoforthree lots of reasons.

  1. some people perceive new as better than old.
  2. snobbery
  3. people question why a property is so cheap - it is a thing that you can sell so cheaply it has no perceived value so why buy it.
  4. newer developments may very well have different contracts that appeal to the buyers.
  5. location and amenities.

I would imagine there are other factors as well - just can’t think of them right now.

Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 20:46

Op. Thank you. This thread is nearly as bad as having to go through it the first time for real!

TheAirbender · 14/07/2021 20:51

I truly believe that if my Dad hadn’t have gone to live in a retirement village he would have ended up in a care home for much much longer. For this reason I believe they are a good option, so long as you go in to it with your eyes open.

user27424799642256 · 14/07/2021 20:58

@Bargebill19

And not sure how you think you can distribute an estate without selling when that’s all there is in the estate. But still a moot point as it didn’t happen!

So yeah stop hammering the non point into the ground.

So in your case the property was sold before your relative died, therefore it never became part of her estate, was never inherited by anyone and all the inheritance aspects of the discussion are not relevant to you?

Clearly your particular circumstances form a cautionary tale, but they are a very specifically different cautionary tale to the one on inheritance that started the thread and that the posters you are so angry with were commenting on.

I'm not sure why you're so outraged that you jumped into a discussion about estates and inheritance without explaining that the property you experienced was sold prior to death, and people didn't read your mind in order to appreciate that you weren't talking about an inherited property like everyone else! Why should people know that if you don't say?

The advice about estates is correct for people in that situation. You weren't. Now we know.

Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 21:00

Oh for the love of god. How often do I have to say it.
NO MIL DID NOT DIE WHILST OWNING THE BASTARD PROPERTY.

Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 21:01

Actually the info about estate management is not correct. See the co op legal team quote.

Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 21:02

And no it’s not a specific cautionary tale it’s very very common.

Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 21:03

Why am I annoyed because people offer incorrect advice based on assumptions, not the info actually given.

Spaceman1 · 14/07/2021 21:04

I think there should be long term rentals for the elderly, so they don't have to tie up lots of cash in a property but still have the security of being able to stay in one place.
I remember my grandparents bought a flat where the developer had the right to buy it back at the price they bought it for. Prices doubled in the meantime, so the developer got it back cheaply, so unfair.

MurielSpriggs · 14/07/2021 21:12

Bloody hell, things move on in the time it takes to have dinner - I agree that the existence of a guarantee is a crucial piece of missing information! It's like pulling teeth, well done @titchyGrin

But @Bargebill19, if you signed a guarantee I'm rather baffled as to what you're complaining about. You've promised to pay the charges. Of course the lessor will chase you if you don't pay what you've agreed. It does sound like you were badly advised, and I'm sorry about that, but that's not the lessor's fault.

(Incidentally I just looked back. This statement of yours was the root of our disagreement:

The monies can’t come from the sale of the property or the deceased’s estate. They have to be paid by whomever inherits and not everyone has a spare £1k per month to suddenly take on these costs.

And it remains incorrect! If you'd said at the outset "they have to be paid by whoever gives a guarantee" then we might all have saved a lot of pointless posts.)

Bargebill19 · 14/07/2021 21:12

But also nice and quick and easily dealt with. Every cloud has a silver lining. @Spaceman1

Soontobe60 · 14/07/2021 21:33

@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.
As it was an inheritance, I’d just sell it for whatever you can get for it. It could be worse, all the money could have been taken up in care home fees.
Swipe left for the next trending thread