BTL For Ex and Child?

chambta

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

"I don't want to profit from the venture-I just want to make sure I don't lose money. Big difference."
You originally wrote "I estimate that on interest only I'd actually be in credit by £100+ with rental income likely to be £450ish." Seems like a profitable plan to me.

There's letting agent fees, income tax, buildings insurance, maintenance, gas safety checks and lots of hassle to be funded from that £100. The hassle would be much greater with an ex as a tenant.

"My financial standing has absolutely no bearing on this whatsoever." Well it should do as you're the daddy!

I agree but there are plenty of absent parents paying nothing. We know nothing of the OP's circumstances so shouldn't judge. Let he who has no sin cast the first stone.

"Are you somehow suggesting I should pay the rent for this on top of my own mortgage!?" How silly of me to think that you have responsibilities above looking after your own comforts.

You paying to provide a roof over your child's head is preferable to the rest of us picking up the bill.

15% of net income pays the maintenance. The OP should pay for half a roof for his kid (it's part of that 15%). He doesn't need to pay for a roof for his ex.

GG

Thanks for some common sense GG. You unlike some seem to know where I'm coming from! All I want it a reasonable, secure place for my ex and daughter to live. Nothing more nothing less. We've been split for approx 6 months now and although things are amicable we both need to move on with our lives as at present we are still living in the same house.

Quite why Tiddlywinks thinks I should 'provide a roof over your child's head' on top of maintenence is beyond me! Does he or she know of any separated parents where one of them pays for two houses?! They live in cloud cuckoo land frankly. Love to hear their opinion on the story this week of the asylum seekers getting £12k a month housing benefit.

It's certainly NOT something I would want to in the idea world but she has viewed several rented properties that do allow 'DSS' tenants but she's not been happy with anything she seen. Mouldy, drafty holes many of them she says. At least this way I can make sure that it's of an acceptable standard.

Incidentally this was entirely her idea and just something I'm considering.

chambta

uktyler wrote: »

So why is the OP not supplying financial support for his child?

Why are the taxpayers having to pay?

If the OP gets his way, we pay the rent, and he gets to keep the property, if it was my child I would pay the rent just to have a decent roof over their heads, and not try and turn it into a nice little earner.

Please tell me where I've stated I won't be. If you can't be bothered to read the facts don't patronise me with your ill informed comments.

uktyler

chambta wrote: »

Please tell me where I've stated I won't be. If you can't be bothered to read the facts don't patronise me with your ill informed comments.

In your very first post you said:

Should we do this she would be in receipt of housing benefit to cover the rent that I'd charge.

The tax payer pays her rent, you pay off the house, you make a profit.

You want the tax payer to fund the housing of your child, and you want to make a profit?

rebjayal

bit harsh!

Tiddlywinks

"All I want it a reasonable, secure place for my ex and daughter to live." That is understandable. ".........we both need to move on with our lives as at present we are still living in the same house." So your child already has a "secure place" to live. Why don't you move out and rent and leave your ex and child in this secure accommodation?

"Quite why Tiddlywinks thinks I should 'provide a roof over your child's head' on top of maintenence is beyond me!" Because it's your child and perhaps you should want to do everything you can for its wellbeing.

"Does he or she know of any separated parents where one of them pays for two houses?!" Actually, yes.

"They live in cloud cuckoo land frankly." No, just from an upbringing where simply "paying maintenance" does NOT rid you of parental responsibilities.

"Love to hear their opinion on the story this week of the asylum seekers getting £12k a month housing benefit." Not relevant to this discussion really is it?


Tiddly

chambta

uktyler wrote: »

In your very first post you said:



The tax payer pays her rent, you pay off the house, you make a profit.

You want the tax payer to fund the housing of your child, and you want to make a profit?

I repeat, where did I say I won't be paying maintenence?! Stop clutching at straws. Your cynicism really is totally unwarranted.

uktyler

chambta wrote: »

I repeat, where did I say I won't be paying maintenence?! Stop clutching at straws. Your cynicism really is totally unwarranted.

I never said you would not pay maintenance, however you seem to think its OK for you to make a profit whilst the tax payer shells out for you to buy a house.

Let them live in your house, and you can rent a flat, problem sorted.

chambta

Tiddlywinks wrote: »

"All I want it a reasonable, secure place for my ex and daughter to live." That is understandable. ".........we both need to move on with our lives as at present we are still living in the same house." So your child already has a "secure place" to live. Why don't you move out and rent and leave your ex and child in this secure accommodation?

"Quite why Tiddlywinks thinks I should 'provide a roof over your child's head' on top of maintenence is beyond me!" Because it's your child and perhaps you should want to do everything you can for its wellbeing.

"Does he or she know of any separated parents where one of them pays for two houses?!" Actually, yes.

"They live in cloud cuckoo land frankly." No, just from an upbringing where simply "paying maintenance" does NOT rid you of parental responsibilities.

"Love to hear their opinion on the story this week of the asylum seekers getting £12k a month housing benefit." Not relevant to this discussion really is it?


Tiddly

You so many assumptions about things you know nothing about. I'm really offended at your suggestion that by wanting the best for my child is getting rid of parental responsibilty. As I've stated before she WILL be moving into rented accomodation WHATEVER happens. This is her choice not mine. And as I also said previously this little plan is all her idea. Just think about the things you say before putting them down.

chambta

uktyler wrote: »

I never said you would not pay maintenance, however you seem to think its OK for you to make a profit whilst the tax payer shells out for you to buy a house.

Let them live in your house, and you can rent a flat, problem sorted.

Yes you did. Read your post from 8.22pm. So I should pay mortgage, maintence and rent?! You're crazy! Would I not just go for full custody and save the hassle?! No because I want the best for them both.

The tax payer pays for many people to buy houses. It would hardly be revolutionary.

uktyler

chambta wrote: »

Yes you did. Read your post from 8.22pm. So I should pay mortgage, maintence and rent?! You're crazy! Would I not just go for full custody and save the hassle?! No because I want the best for them both.

The tax payer pays for many people to buy houses. It would hardly be revolutionary.

So you don't want to provide a roof over your childs head?