Shared ownership - selling my half

Orpheo

dorset_nurse wrote: »

Obviously maths is your strong point because you seem to be rather weak at comprehension.

No. I am strong in comprehension, spelling and grammar too. Perhaps you are "rather weak" at expressing yourself with sense.

dorset_nurse wrote: »

I say again; In none of my posts have I pointed out that the OP has financially gained from the purchase, only that he CAN gain in the future to prevent walking away at a loss. (You don't need to be good at maths to work that one out).

Really, let's take post #22.

Good point- but he actually has "gained" some equity over the last 4 years, prehaps not the best choice of words in the circumstances.

No, nothing wrong with my comprehension of that one.

dorset_nurse wrote: »

In your previous post you only serve to prove that he will lose out if he walks away.
If you are so against BTL then explain it rather than picking holes in it.

Just so you know I don't live in Dorset either

In this instance I wasn't picking holes in BTL, I was picking holes in your competence. You don't live in Dorset, you're not a nurse, there's not a great deal that is comprehensible about you, particularly your ill-conceived posts; I just hope that you are not a financial adviser.

You don't really know what point you are trying to make do you?

Orpheo

zappahey wrote: »

Does "gained" mean something else in your dictionary?

Apparently it does.

zzzLazyDaisy

dorset_nurse wrote: »

In none of my posts have I pointed out that the OP has financially gained from the purchase, only that he CAN gain in the future to prevent walking away at a loss.

On the basis that, historically, over time, house prices are likely to rise sufficiently to reverse the loss and eventually rise enough to provide increased equity in the house, your premise is correct.

BUT during that time OP must continue to contribute towards the mortgage, whilst presumably also paying rent somewhere else. There is also a not insignificant risk that prices may have further to fall, which could plunge OP into negative equity (£8k equity really isn't much of a buffer). If the house ends up being sold during that time, OP is likely to end up with a debt.

More importantly, this scenario means that OP and the other joint owner are tied into a relationship through the joint mortgage for years, potentially for decades, during which time OP is unlikely to be able to get another mortgage.

The maths *might* add up if OP is willing to put their life on hold for an indeterminate period of years, and doesn't mind the financial cost of doing so, but realistically - in my view - life is too short.

OP if you die while this is ongoing your joint owner will automatically inherit your share of the house if the house is jointly held as 'joint tenants'. You cannot get round this simply by making a will, as your 'share' of the house would not pass through your will. So you should consider seeking legal advice about severing the joint tenancy and then making a will (more expense, but hey ho....)

dorset_nurse

I believe I have touched a nerve, was it because I was "assuming" things?!

All you have pointed out in the above is that I admitted in post #22 that I should have been clearer in my language that I was not talking about a financial gain so that people like you didn't ASSUME I was. It is not my problem if you cannot understand posts. I won't mention comprehension again.

How can you accuse me of being incompetent? You know nothing about me yet you get personal when you feel your argument is losing credibility. Sounds rather childish to me.

I'm amused you point out that my username doesn't give me credibility because you made assumptions from it. Is that so suprising from a public forum online?! It doesn't matter what my business is; this thread is about giving the OP advice of which I gave him ALL unbiased options in my first thread.

I have made my point, and you have reinforced it for me. What is yours?

Orpheo

dorset_nurse wrote: »

I believe I have touched a nerve, was it because I was "assuming" things?!

All you have pointed out in the above is that I admitted in post #22 that I should have been clearer in my language that I was not talking about a financial gain so that people like you didn't ASSUME I was. It is not my problem if you cannot understand posts. I won't mention comprehension again.

How can you accuse me of being incompetent? You know nothing about me yet you get personal when you feel your argument is losing credibility. Sounds rather childish to me.

I'm amused you point out that my username doesn't give me credibility because you made assumptions from it. Is that so suprising from a public forum online?! It doesn't matter what my business is; this thread is about giving the OP advice of which I gave him ALL unbiased options in my first thread.

I have made my point, and you have reinforced it for me. What is yours?

The black knight...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

That's you, that is.

dorset_nurse

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

On the basis that, historically, over time, house prices are likely to rise sufficiently to reverse the loss and eventually rise enough to provide increased equity in the house, your premise is correct.

BUT during that time OP must continue to contribute towards the mortgage, whilst presumably also paying rent somewhere else. There is also a not insignificant risk that prices may have further to fall, which could plunge OP into negative equity (£8k equity really isn't much of a buffer). If the house ends up being sold during that time, OP is likely to end up with a debt.

More importantly, this scenario means that OP and the other joint owner are tied into a relationship through the joint mortgage for years, potentially for decades, during which time OP is unlikely to be able to get another mortgage.

The maths *might* add up if OP is willing to put their life on hold for an indeterminate period of years, and doesn't mind the financial cost of doing so, but realistically - in my view - life is too short.

OP if you die while this is ongoing your joint owner will automatically inherit your share of the house if the house is jointly held as 'joint tenants'. You cannot get round this simply by making a will, as your 'share' of the house would not pass through your will. So you should consider seeking legal advice about severing the joint tenancy and then making a will (more expense, but hey ho....)

I agree with you LazyDaisy, buying the house in the first place was a risk... it depends on what further risk the OP is willing to take and what finances allow.
If the OPs flatmate doesn't want to live with another lodger he could also move out and let his room; making it a joint business venture.
The only "right" opinion will be the one the OP decides upon.
OP- where is your house? Let me know the details and I may be likely to give you 4k for your share!

zzzLazyDaisy

dorset_nurse wrote: »

OP- where is your house? Let me know the details and I may be likely to give you 4k for your share!

I know that remark was made tongue in cheek - but actually acquiring his share would involve the cost of buying out his half of the mortgage debt, in addition to giving OP his share of the equity.

(I'm only pointing this out because it is amazing how many people come on here with fixed ideas about what their 'share' of the equity is worth, whilst completely forgetting that the mortgage debt forms part of their 'share' too!)

Spartacus_Mills

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I'm assuming you and your friend bought together and have since been sharing the house as housemates?

If so, then rent your half out.

Your friend gets a new housemate. You don't crystallize a loss at the bottom of the market.

Everyones a winner.

This may or may not be the bottom of the market.

I would take advice of professionals on that matter. The market may continue to tank or it may be the bottom.

Problem is this is the wrong forum for advice. You know your circumstances better than us and where the property is. You must make your own mind up.

Personally I would bail out if it meant I had no mortgage liability as well. However that is easy for me to say as I own my own house having paid a mortgage off.

Conan_the_librarian

Putting the options for renting aside, assuming you have split the costs of home improvements then the calculation your friend has made and the offer of £4000 to buy you out is fair if the valuation is correct.

dorset_nurse

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

I know that remark was made tongue in cheek - but actually acquiring his share would involve the cost of buying out his half of the mortgage debt, in addition to giving OP his share of the equity.

(I'm only pointing this out because it is amazing how many people come on here with fixed ideas about what their 'share' of the equity is worth, whilst completely forgetting that the mortgage debt forms part of their 'share' too!)

I agree with what you're saying about fixed ideas of people. Thanks for pointing it out to everyone.
In my situation I would offer to buy out the other housemate and see where that got me- or pay off my part of the mortgage and either let my room or sit and wait for prices to come up again to sell then.
But the OP may not have the finances to be able to do this.