[Gumbo]

Originally Posted by Rows Grower

He might be covered under his mortgage protection insurance.

.

Good call, OP has your "friend " checked this out?

[Donald Trump]

Originally Posted by Rows Grower

He might be covered under his mortgage protection insurance.

It would be great if he was, I'd feel like a superhero.

To the best of my knowledge that was exhausted years ago. I think that it was limited to 6 months.

[Del2005]

The person would need to be on the housing list to get HAP and you can't get on that when you own a home. Where will the person live while they are out of the house and waiting for HAP to be provided, if they qualify for it?

As other have said HAP requires the property to meet current building regulations, everything else requires the property to meet regulations when it was built, so if the house is anyway old the cost to get it up to HAP standard will be massive. Will the house even be suitable for them if they do stay there?

The person needs to see their community welfare officer to see what support they'll get.

[listermint]

So someone gets to live in 'their' house and their friend gets a mortgage paid off by the state.

Let me guess. The house will be sold at below market value too


Dreamer

[Donald Trump]

Originally Posted by listermint

So someone gets to live in 'their' house and their friend gets a mortgage paid off by the state.

Let me guess. The house will be sold at below market value too


Dreamer

Are you another one who'd prefer to see the disabled person dragged out of their house
Weird people on here alright!

I'll ask you the same question that I asked the other poster then - how much of an extra cost to the state would it be worth to you to see it happen? 1k a month, 2k a month or would the schadenfreude just be priceless.


The person same who will buy the house can buy it anyway afterward the eviction and instead rent it for the full rent. Do you understand the concept of how renting works? A person buys a piece of property and then allows another person to use it in exchange for money.

[Donald Trump]

Originally Posted by Del2005

The person would need to be on the housing list to get HAP and you can't get on that when you own a home. Where will the person live while they are out of the house and waiting for HAP to be provided, if they qualify for it?

The first bit was the reason I posted here as I thought someone would know if things would need to be done in a certain order to be more streamlined.

The second bit was included in what I outlined in that I thought I said that the new owner would allow the person to stay there while being assessed.

[Thoie]

OP, as the future potential landlord, have you read the landlord's guide to HAP leaflet? That sets out a lot of the things that must happen - including what the landlord needs to do to be compliant.

The question of the suitability of the property that a few others have brought up is not negligible. Even though the person may have been living in the house fine for years, the fact that it will now be a rented property means that there are minimum requirements that must be met. For example, window restrictors fitted on windows above a certain height. You might need to add smoke/carbon monoxide alarms. If the house is generally in good repair, none of these should be very expensive. However, you can't say "sure, person A has lived there for years without a smoke alarm, he's not fussed about having one".

This page sets out the tenant's obligations.

[Donald Trump]

Originally Posted by Thoie

OP, as the future potential landlord, have you read the landlord's guide to HAP leaflet? That sets out a lot of the things that must happen - including what the landlord needs to do to be compliant.

The question of the suitability of the property that a few others have brought up is not negligible. Even though the person may have been living in the house fine for years, the fact that it will now be a rented property means that there are minimum requirements that must be met. For example, window restrictors fitted on windows above a certain height. You might need to add smoke/carbon monoxide alarms. If the house is generally in good repair, none of these should be very expensive. However, you can't say "sure, person A has lived there for years without a smoke alarm, he's not fussed about having one".

This page sets out the tenant's obligations.

No, thanks for that but I will explain why I am not focusing on that for now.

The reason I am not worried or asking about standards is that that could be sorted later and not a show stopper. As I tried to say to another poster earlier, once it is not an inherent characteristic of the property - such as being in the wrong location - then it is secondary. If it is just bringing it to standards then if it can be done it will be.

If it needs a carbon monoxide alarm and there isn't one there now I am not concerned because it is a relatively easy fix. Not because I think it can be ignored should the "suggested plan" actually materialize. The person who would buy the house is doing it to help the ill person. And those standards are there for a reason. So if it's something that makes the place more comfortable or safer, it would be done.


I'm getting an awful lot of snarky replies (not yours). I don't understand it. I fail to see how it could be perceived as somehow playing the system or a scam. The only real winners under my scenario are the state and other unsecured creditors who get repaid. The big loser financially is the person who purchases the house and rents it back at HAP rates. The ill person will have to be accommodated at the states expense in any case, although it might be nicer for their dignity to stay where they are and don't have to publicly suffer the embarrassment of being turfed out of their home.

[sunnysoutheast]

Originally Posted by Donald Trump

No, thanks for that but I will explain why I am not focusing on that for now.

The reason I am not worried or asking about standards is that that could be sorted later and not a show stopper. As I tried to say to another poster earlier, once it is not an inherent characteristic of the property - such as being in the wrong location - then it is secondary. If it is just bringing it to standards then if it can be done it will be.

If it needs a carbon monoxide alarm and there isn't one there now I am not concerned because it is a relatively easy fix. Not because I think it can be ignored should the "suggested plan" actually materialize. The person who would buy the house is doing it to help the ill person. And those standards are there for a reason. So if it's something that makes the place more comfortable or safer, it would be done.


I'm getting an awful lot of snarky replies (not yours). I don't understand it. I fail to see how it could be perceived as somehow playing the system or a scam. The only real winners under my scenario are the state and other unsecured creditors who get repaid. The big loser financially is the person who purchases the house and rents it back at HAP rates. The ill person will have to be accommodated at the states expense in any case, although it might be nicer for their dignity to stay where they are and don't have to publicly suffer the embarrassment of being turfed out of their home.

Person A might be able to establish their eligibility to join the housing list, and hence qualify for HAP, on the basis that the mortgage is unsustainable, prior to any potential sale of their house.

If it was me I would investigate that option and get it answered before making any decisions regarding any sale, however noble the intentions might be.