Selling a joint ownership property...with issues...

amber17

Hi everyone,

I'm hoping someone here can give a bit of advice on a tricky situation that I am now in. My ex-partner and I are joint owners of a house. We decided that we would put it on the market as neither of us wants to live in the same property anymore. The property has been on the market for a couple of months now with one viewing and the estate agent wants to drop the price to £130-135k. This would result in 3k of negative equity. It is currently listed at £140k.

I am happy to sit and wait to see what the new year brings and hope that there is someone out there that would like to purchase as I don't see many people planning to move over the Christmas period.

My ex however has now said that she no longer wants to pay any bills for the property as she cannot live there. The reasons for this I do not know...It is a 3 bedroom property and I am only there for 3 nights a week and work full time and have done everything possible to maintain a civil situation in the property until it sells.

I am just wondering where I stand in all this...Can she refuse to pay any bills for the property and leave me with them all? Does this affect any ownership rights she has to the property? As far as I am aware, she has not been in the property since the end of November and definately not stayed there at all.

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated.

david29dpo

She is liable for the mortgage, as are you, whether or not she lives there. As to the other bills, whos name are they in? Same applies. Ownership rights to the house remains the same as when you both bought the house. Are you married?

poppysarah

Your best bet is it sell it quickly and stop having the stress of dealing with these issues.

Looks like the pair of you will need to chip in towards the negative equity. You could ask Gordon for a handout maybe.

Debt_Free_Chick

There is nothing to stop her moving out. If she does, then she wouldn't be using any utilities, so no payment would be due for those. She would be liable for the mortgage - but as you will be occupying her share of the property, she could charge you Occupation Rent and this would probably cancel out her share of the mortgage payment.

So - yes - she can lumber you with the whole lot but look at it this way .... you will be the sole occupant and in any other situation, you would be solely responsible for the cost of occupation.

Occupation Rent arises under the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 - owning a property jointly creates a "Trust" under English Law, whereby you each own a share and hold the other share "for the benefit" of the other party. The Act does not use the term occupation rent, but provides for a joint owner who is excluded from the property to be awarded "compensation" for that exclusion. Exclusion does not have to be forced and the irretrievable breakdown of a relationship is sufficent reason for exclusion.

You could either simply accept that she has this right or force to Court over it, but it's almost certain she would win.

Selling is your best bet, as others have suggested.

silvercar

If you are only there 3 nights a week, it may be cost effective for you to move out. Then there will be no obligation on you to pay all the bills and no risk of her charging you "occupation rent".

D_F_C, if the property was empty, who would be responsible for the utility costs/ council tax that would be necessary to keep the property in a saleable condition?

Debt_Free_Chick

silvercar wrote: »

If you are only there 3 nights a week, it may be cost effective for you to move out. Then there will be no obligation on you to pay all the bills and no risk of her charging you "occupation rent".

D_F_C, if the property was empty, who would be responsible for the utility costs/ council tax that would be necessary to keep the property in a saleable condition?

Shared, in relation to ownership. So both have to pay to keep the property empty.Where's there's an occupant, then that person pays whatever it costs for them to consume what they use.

Even where a property is occupied by one, the costs are shared - but the absent partner then "counterclaims" for the rent and one usually cancels out the other. Like this .....

Occupant: Here's the bill for half this month's property costs
Absentee: Here's the bill for rent for you occupying my share of the property


Result - no money changes hands. It's not automatically that no money no changes hands, as it depends on the actual figures involved. If the absentee owns less than half, then their share of the rent may well be less than their share of the costs, so money would need to be paid to the occupant.

In this situation, the Courts used to apply "equitable accounting" i.e. what is fair and equitable. But there are numerous cases that suggest that the correct approach is "compensation" to the absentee for being excluded from the property is the intention, but it's a fine point and doesn't affect the fundamental issue, which is that the absentee is entitled to "something" to recognise that they are getting no benefit (in terms of occupation) for their interest in the property.

HTH

silvercar

Looks like it would be cheaper not to live in a property than live in it part-time.

Debt_Free_Chick

silvercar wrote: »

Looks like it would be cheaper not to live in a property than live in it part-time.

It could be. OP would need to compare total costs of staying put, with no contribution from ex, with total cost of keeping the property empty AND the cost of living elsewhere.

Unlikely to be much in it, unless OP can rent a much cheaper property - and with mortgage rates falling, that's getting more difficult, unless you downsize to a smaller property and/or less desirable area.

I'm not sure an unoccupied house will do much to help a sale in the current climate, though

lonestar1

Occupation rent

Ask me for that and you'll get back Im only living in my part of the house

As for services even if the other party isnt using them they should still pay towards any standing charges IMO

Debt_Free_Chick

lonestar1 wrote: »

Occupation rent

Ask me for that and you'll get back Im only living in my part of the house

As far as the law is concerned, it's not what you occupy. It's the fact that the other party doesn't occupy at all and is considered to be "excluded". Just be aware that this is the basis on which the Courts would decide, should you find yourself in this unfortunate position. And if you refuse to pay, then the Court will simply adjust your share of the equity, whether positive or negative, to take any unpaid occupation rent from you.

As for services even if the other party isnt using them they should still pay towards any standing charges IMO

Again, there is always a contrary argument for these things and here it is ....

A standing charge only applies where a supply is made available. It's just part of the total cost of consumption/use and it seems only fair that the consumer of the service should pay whatever the cost is for their consumption, including any standing charge. If a supply is not required e.g. as the property is unoccupied, then there will be no standing charge.

silvercar

I'm not sure an unoccupied house will do much to help a sale in the current climate, though

That's the point. I would have thought that the costs of making the house sellable eg warm enough to show people round and so pipes don't burst, electrics so the lights work etc should be split equally. The occupier should only pay the extra used above the "sellable level".

(Not sure if it should be sellable or saleable.)