Ownership of a house

R997

We're in the process of buying a house and I don't have a lot of faith in the conveyencers advice. We've caught them out in a couple of outright lies and they totally miscommunicated intentions between us and the seller on more than one occasion.

A brief history; my wifes business failed three years ago leaving her with bad credit. We have a substantial deposit and I can easily cover the mortgage on my salary (my credit is good). So, the mortgage is in my name only.

This morning we received an email from the conveyencer stating that becuase the mortgage is only in my name the property will also only be in my name, and my wife will: "need to sign an Occupiers Consent Form to confirm that she will have no interest in the property"

I must admit, I hadn't given this very much though until now. Having the mortgage in my name only was necassary to get it approved, however I'd like the property in both names if we can. We have wills with a receiprocal clause, so it would automatically become hers if I died, but that's not really the point. The conveyencer has told me we cannot do it. The mortgage deed is in my name, and so the house must be as well. My problem is that I don't trust their advice. Does anyone know for certain what the situation is?

laidbackgjr

Your conveyencer is correct, the deeds and mortgage must be in the same names.

Guest101

It's like this: the Mortgage company has an interest in the property, they do not want third parties to complicate matters if they need to reposess.

Once it's paid off, you can simply gift her 50% if you wish.

R997

Guest101 wrote: »

It's like this: the Mortgage company has an interest in the property, they do not want third parties to complicate matters if they need to reposess.

Makes perfect sense. Understand now. Thanks.

TBagpuss

Yes, the document she will be asked to sign simply acknowledges that the mortgage companies interest in the property takes precedence over any claims she might have, and that she will leave the property if it is repossessed. It is a standard requirement for any adult living in the property unless they are named on the mortgage.

There would be nothing to stop the two of you having a deed of trust drawn up giving her a specific beneficial interest in the property, if you wanted, as long it it was clear that this was subject to the mortgage.

maninthestreet

What alleged 'lies' has your conveyencer been telling you??

kingstreet

Which mortgage lender, please?

It's worth bearing in mind, some lenders will not accept a purchase in one name where the deposit is coming from a joint account or jointly owned home where the third party will be residing in the property, but not party to the mortgage nor the purchase.

R997

maninthestreet wrote: »

What alleged 'lies' has your conveyencer been telling you??

Telling us they'd confirmed with the sellers solicitor that we were working to the same approximate time-scale. It turned out they hadn't, and we weren't even close. If we hadn't bypassed them the thing would probably have fallen through becuase of this failure to communicate.

Telling us documents had been processed and were in the post when they weren't. They had to call us later to confirm details.

Telling the seller they had passed on an offer to sell us white goods when they'd never mentioned it.

Telling the sellers solictor we were tied to a date becuase of work comittments. Never been discussed and completely fabricated.

Telling us they'd contacted the seller (and heard back) about proposed completion dates. This only happened after we'd already short-circuted the line of communication, approached the seller directly and agreed the dates we'd shoot for.

To say they're 'Micky Mouse' would be an insult to animated rodents everywhere. I have zero faith, and communicating directly with the seller has been illuminating to say the least. They say whatever is required to get you off the phone.

Interestingly, they're reluctant to commit to anything in email, despite being asked repeatedly. As an experienced professional myself, this makes me very wary.

The whole process has taught me one extremely valuable lesson. Cheap solicitors / conveyencers are cheap for a reason. Using them is a false ecomonomy. In retrospect I'd rather have paid double for someone I trusted.