Inheritance Law Question Mr & Mrs A got a council property which they paid rent to the council. They brought up their children at that place. Three of the children lived with the parents passed the age of 18. Mr A passed away. After that point Mrs A purchased the property from the council under the right to buy scheme. Mrs A couldn't afford the mortgage therefore the eldest child living at the property jointly purchased the property. Other two siblings paid towards to mortgage but officially they are not owners of the property. Mrs A passed away. The eldest child claims rights over the property and takes 100% of it. What is the legal standing for all the children of Mrs A in terms of claims over this property?
I'm replying but I don't think its going through?
1999 price 260k, after 75% discount cost 65k.
two siblings paid 1/3 each of the monthly mortgage cost. No evidence as it was cash dealings.
Mrs A has 9 children and three in question lived with her passed the age of 18.
I don't know of any wills?
yes, as far as it is known.
don't know what rules are set by the local council when an owner is deceased.
It was over 1.5 years ago...
Didn't know the laws.
I think it may have been around 5 years.
From 1999 till she passed away.
1) no evidence of discount but it openly talked about. The council will have a record of that. The siblings do not have any paperwork as the eldest kept that and dealt with the paperwork.
2) yes two siblings lived there. And yes they paid extra towards house running costs, such as food, utility etc.
may be in the region of above 1.2 million
How long do the siblings have in order to start pursuing this?
Does this have to be a joint claim by the 8 siblings (9th holder of the property)?
Why is getting the discount significant?
Ignoring the small claims by the two siblings...what value would the property considered for the claim? date of mothers death? current?
The link does not take me to a case, there are two listed, which one is relevant?
Re An application to Commit (H v D & ors)  EWHC 2090 (Fam) and  EWHC 2228 (costs)
TAJ v ISLAN: Judges still falling into error in the assessment of BHR post Stevens v Equity