Proof of house ownership percentage

[BertBert]

I own 75% of my mother's house and she owns 25%. No mortgage involved.

If she has to go into care and has her assets assessed, how do we prove the split?

Land registry entry just shows joint ownership, not the proportion.

Cheers
Bert

[BertBert]

I guess the question is the same for if she were to die (or more accurately, when).

[anonymous-user]

You could do with checking the terminology.

Joint tenants is 50/50.
Tenants in common can vary. There will be an additional document defining this split.

The basic info will be on The Land Registry site if you don't have it to hand.

[DSLiverpool]

If you have had 75% for over 7 years or so its not an issue (I think) the council only go looking for obvious more recent switches.

[clockworks]

Interesting question. I might be in a similar position soon, and the same thought had crossed my mind. I'd be doing it with a mortgage on a "new" property for mum though, so probably easier to prove.

[assadahmed]

The transfer form used when purchasing the house would show the percentages between the purchasers. If two individuals were purchasing they would be able to declare the percentages on the transfer. Land Registry should be able to get a copy of this for you.

Of course the above not be consistent with how you both ended up as owners of the property so further clarification of this would help answer your question.

[BertBert]

The house was bought together by us both in cash some 6 years ago. I paid 75% of the price, she paid 25%. Very simple.

Looking at the form that went to the land registry, there is no mention of percentages, just joint ownership.

[vonhosen]

Joint = 50/50
In common = defined percentages.

[BertBert]

The term "joint" is probably my word, but I'll check again to see if that's the precise term used.

If so, looks like the solicitor made a cockup as we were very clear on what was happening.

I'll contact them about getting it rectified.

Bert

[vindaloo79]

We had one of these when buying to define the %ages.

https://www.rocketlawyer.co.uk/documents-and-forms...


-- not from this provider i hasten to add

[BertBert]

This looks quite straightforward then!

vindaloo79 said:

We had one of these when buying to define the %ages.

https://www.rocketlawyer.co.uk/documents-and-forms...


-- not from this provider i hasten to add

[Red Devil]

That link quite clearly refers to tenants-in-common. If the title has been registered as joint, and thereby does not reflect the original intention of the parties, the OP's conveyancer/solictor did a cp job and has some questions to answer. If they can be proved to have cocked it up (ask to see the file) and the OP intends to use the same firm then the expectation should be for the rectification work to be done f.o.c. or at the very least a heavily discounted fee.

The distinction between the two types of tenancy is crucial. Where it is held as tenants-in-common it has inhertiance implications and properly drawn up wills by both parties are a must. Especially if the sibling were to pre-decease the parent for any reason. Factors to be taken into account are whether there are any other siblings, his marital status, and whether he has any children.

[bladebloke]

BertBert said:

The term "joint" is probably my word, but I'll check again to see if that's the precise term used.

If so, looks like the solicitor made a cockup as we were very clear on what was happening.

I'll contact them about getting it rectified.

Bert

They may have done!

A declaration of trust would sever the joint tenancy (if that's how it's currently held) and set out what percentages each tenant in common owns beneficially. I'd suggest getting together some evidence that the DoT you will do now is just regularising what was always the intention (rather than changing who owns what at this point), in case it's relevant in the future. This might include getting the original solicitor's file.

You can tell if it is registered as JT or TIC by looking in the proprietorship register on the Land Registry docs - if it say this:

"No disposition by a sole proprietor of the registered estate (except a trust corporation) under which capital money arises is to be registered unless authorised by an order of the court"

then it's held as TIC already but would be presumed to be in equal shares with nothing to say to the contrary - it's not a case of 50/50 means joint tenants as somebody posted above; tenants in common can hold 50/50 too, it's just that they each hold a distinct share rather than both owning the whole, if that makes sense. It's also not true that the original transfer would include details of the split, necessarily - they quite often just say that the property is to be held on trust pursuant to a DOT and don't give details of the split.

So that it's not a surprise, I anticipate that mum will need to take independent legal advice before signing the DoT but this might not be a bad thing if anybody is asking questions later.

[vonhosen]

I didn't see anyone saying 50/50 = joint, rather that joint = 50/50.
There was no suggestion that 'In common' couldn't be defined as 50/50, only that 'in common' = defined percentages.

[bladebloke]

vonhosen said:

I didn't see anyone saying 50/50 = joint, rather that joint = 50/50.
There was no suggestion that 'In common' couldn't be defined as 50/50, only that 'in common' = defined percentages.

I'm sorry if I inferred incorrectly when reading your post, but guess others may have, too. No offence intended.

[assadahmed]

Looks like the op's solicitor may have messed up but it's worth going through any old letters, emails etc you may have to see if the split was ever mentioned either by the solicitor or purchasers. If not then immediate contact with the solicitor to explain the issue and see what he or she says.

You can of course amend it now.