Can you buy a house with no money up front?

kingstreet

This isn't going to help the OP, but for future readers of this thread, paying off the entire mortgage with all the benefits from a life policy may not always be the best idea.

In this instance, using a portion of the money to carry out the essential repairs on the house would have been a sensible option. The smaller mortgage left would attract state benefits and if needing to sell later, the property would be a more attractive option for potential buyers.

poppysarah

Bigmoney2 wrote: »

Although if you sell up, the capital from the sale will affect any means tested benefits you receive.

The OP should check whether the rule about buying a house within so many months still applies.

Notmyrealname

Bigmoney2 wrote: »

Although if you sell up, the capital from the sale will affect any means tested benefits you receive.

It doesn't if you're going to use the money to purchase a new property.

Notmyrealname

MoominMama wrote: »

I guess I've got to hope that I either meet a rich man, win the lottery or go on DIY SOS lol

It may sound daft but why not try the DIY SOS? You've nothing to lose by it.

Mara69

I'd be inclined to sell then either buy something smaller (maybe out of area) or use the proceeds from the sale of the house to rent a decent house. Use the money to retrain maybe, so you can get a job. You talk of security for your children - I consider that providing them a warm and comfortable home, be it rented or owned, is security.

JQ.

Notmyrealname wrote: »

But the problem is how are you going to pay for the new house? You can't pay for it until you sell the old one. You can't get a bridging loan because you're unemployed. You can't get a mortgage to cover the difference in price because you're unemployed and with your house being in a bad state you'll take a real kicking on the price you get, assuming someone actually wants to buy it.

The best option would be to go into rental for a short time. Yes it means an extra move but it solves the problem.

I don't understand the logic.

The OP could sell their house without a deposit, lots of people do this all the time. The person buying the OP's house hands over a deposit at exchange, that deposit is then used for the house that the OP is buying. When completion occurs the cash the OP receives is then handed to to the owners of the house she is buying - job done.

I would imagine all the OP would need to find upfront would be some costs for the solicitors on the house being bought. I'll bet there are some conveyancing firms that will meet those costs upfront on the basis that you pay considerably more than standard fees. They might not be great conveyancers but at least the OP would be able to move without any money upfront. Might be worth a search to see what's available.

Yorkie1

JQ. wrote: »

I would imagine all the OP would need to find upfront would be some costs for the solicitors on the house being bought. I'll bet there are some conveyancing firms that will meet those costs upfront on the basis that you pay considerably more than standard fees. They might not be great conveyancers but at least the OP would be able to move without any money upfront. Might be worth a search to see what's available.

I very much doubt that any solicitors firms will meet the costs of disbursements (searches etc) up front because until you exchange, there is no guarantee that you will buy the house and therefore that the funds will become available from the client at some future point to meet those costs.

I don't see why the solicitor should bear this risk just because someone hasn't been able to save, or willing to wait to save, for this.

tbs624

sariebeth wrote: »

Just worth saying, dont go down the sale and rent back route. It's a bad idea x

These schemes have an FSA block on them at the moment - see this from Shelter

OP - what ages are your children?

What would the 20K repairs assistance grant leave unfinished?

JQ.

Yorkie1 wrote: »

I very much doubt that any solicitors firms will meet the costs of disbursements (searches etc) up front because until you exchange, there is no guarantee that you will buy the house and therefore that the funds will become available from the client at some future point to meet those costs.

I don't see why the solicitor should bear this risk just because someone hasn't been able to save, or willing to wait to save, for this.

Why, Estate Agents don't ask for their advertising costs in advance. I work in consultancy and don't charge clients disbursements in advance, they are paid along with my invoice. The variety of solicitors I use at work don't charge for disbursements in advance either.

I realise it's slightly different when dealing with Jo Public, but ultimately the Conveyancer would have a contract with the OP and if the deal did not complete the OP would still be liable for those costs. The main reason conveyancers want payment in advance is because of the PITA chasing debts. All I am saying is there may be some conveyancers willing to take that risk on the basis of higher fees.

tbs624

JQ. wrote: »

The main reason conveyancers want payment in advance is because of the PITA chasing debts. All I am saying is there may be some conveyancers willing to take that risk on the basis of higher fees.

Paying out the disbursements on behalf of a client with a lack of income and/or savings is in effect offering a loan which is unsecured -add the fact that the sale & purchase may not reach a conclusion and the fact that the "higher fees" may of course not get recovered ( or recoverable only at silly ££ per week via a court judgement) and it's likely to be a risk too far.