Ethics: I want to buy soon, girlfriend unwilling

Hooloovoo

InMyDreams wrote: »

And so she has and should!

I would debate should. She only should if she is contributing to the mortgage. But is she contributing to the mortgage, or is she paying rent to the owner as a lodger? A lodger clearly doesn't obtain any equity in the property even though the end result is the same in that they are helping the owner pay their mortgage.

So the question is - is she his girlfriend or his lodger? Personally I don't think the two can be the same, but others may disagree!

antrobus wrote: »

I now understand the difference between men and women.

A man generally obtains information upfront and makes decisions based on that information.

A women sees everything through lovey-dovey rose-tinted glasses and only worries about what to do once the s**t has hit the fan and it's too late.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Thanks, maybe I will suggest the mortgage goes from a different account.

I don't believe what account the mortgage or bills come from makes any difference. Your son needs to get his girlfriend to sign a lodger agreement, as he would with any lodger. Without that the girlfriend can claim she was contributing to the mortgage and your son can not prove otherwise.

InMyDreams wrote: »

I think this is excellent. It's effectively what she would have been contributing to the equity anyway, so she gets it back. Seems fair. (Actually a bit less as the interest she'll get is less than what would have been saved if it was put in the mortgage.) It just keeps everything clean and separate until such a time you decide you are a single unit through marriage, kids, whatever.

Thanks. That's it exactly. It's all neat and tidy.

Technically I could be charging her rent, but she's my girlfriend not my lodger! As you said in another post, even if she was my lodger she is sharing my room so I still have a spare room for another lodger if I wanted/needed!

But then my guess is she wasn't in a position to be taking those risks with her money anyway, otherwise she would have been buying herself.

Exactly. She had no savings for a deposit and a salary that is too low to get a mortgage anyway.

This way I still get the benefit of having my monthly bills shared, and she gets the benefit of low living costs in order to save for her own deposit - whether that ends up being shared in a house with me or one bought on her own.

Some people see this as being uncommitted to the relationship. If we were committed we'd share everything and jointly own everything no matter even if one person made no financial contribution at all.

Personally I think that doesn't make any sense at all, and my own opinion is quite the opposite. Having individual finances and knowing that neither of you is financially dependent on the other makes the relationship more committed.

If you know that either one of you could walk out at any time and not be in any financial hardship, then that means you are together because you want to be, not because you'd be homeless otherwise.

seven-day-weekend

Errata wrote: »

I think much depends on the relationship. If they're simply shacking up together then it's pretty much a business arrangement, if they believe they're in a forever relationship than everything belongs to both.
There are a great many variables, but the one that has primarcy in a healthy relationship is trust.

They are in a long-term relationship, but there are good valid reasons why they do not have a joint bank account and that she pays money into his. This was discussed at length before they moved into the flat together.

If they marry then everything is half hers, otherwise, legally, no, although morally there is no way he would swindle her, if they do split up then she will be treated fairly.

Anyway, I just mentioned the way they do things to try to help the OP, I don't really want to discuss my son's living arrangments on this thread. If it suits them, why is it anyone else's business?

seven-day-weekend

vincent.waldorf wrote: »

The different between him and her is that he is putting his own deposit and is up to his eyes in debt with a mortgage, she can walk away if she "gets bored" he is also taking on equity risk. if house prices go down then he will be at a loss, she will be the same. If he cant pay the mortgage do you think the GF would step in and use all her salary to pay it even if they are in "love"?
The part about a lodger is theorhetical, assuming he isnt struggling. the point is that if she did not live with him she would have to pay to live somewhere ragardless. he has probably worked out that paying rent greater than mortgage payments is silly and decided to buy!!!

Exactly. Thanks for being realistic! It is cheaper for both of them.

BitterAndTwisted

Cheaper in the short-term can transmogrify into much more expensive in the long-term.

One only has to read a few threads on this forum about couples splitting up where only one has taken out the mortgage to understand what the risks might be.

DVardysShadow

vincent.waldorf wrote: »

The way i see it is that she would have to pay rent to live somewhere anyway. You make it clear in writing that she has no equity claim on the property if you split (know its a taboo and all the trust issues). best thing is to give her a subsidy on market rate, that way you say that you say you dont want to feel too stretched. she should appreciate the less than market rate.

This kind of thing cannot be dealt with by giving a notice - if you mean OP should give his GF a notice telling her she has no rights over the property. She would have to take legal advice and sign a disclaimer

Daniel_Garner wrote: »

Brief question on ethics / morality / good practice.

.....

In a year or so, I'm keen to move out of the flat, and invest in buying a property. She isn't in such a good financial position, and in any case is unwilling to commit to owning something very soon.

I'm unwilling to share a mortgage with someone I'm not married to: I know too many people who have lost a lot that way. Some options that I can see:

1) I could pay for it entirely and allow her to live there rent free - a good deal for her, but she has no long term security.

2) Could I buy, and charge her rent to live there? Seems unreasonable, as she would effectively be paying mortgage for no investment return.

3) I could buy to let, but would still be paying rent on wherever I live - seems too much of a gamble and stretch of resources for a first time buy.

4) Do nothing until we do (or don't :P ) get married some years to come!

Clearly I should discuss this with her before we move in together.

As others have said, t is not an ethical question.

I suggest you wait the year and make a plan at that time. 3 and 4 seem pointless. The choice to be made, if she is up for continued involvement with you and your plan, is whether she will commit to the purchase or she will just be a lodger.