Mortgage wanted

dafyddplayer

Hello all

Looking of some advice on buying first property.

Me and my gf have plans to buy a house. However the financial situation is this.

I am a fairly paid worker @ £26000 per yr , however my credit rating is shot and i owe £7500. which im slowly paying off.

My gf is on minimum wage and her credit rating is perfect.

Now i wouldn't like to live and spend on a house that she owns all herself. I would always plan to upgrade the house etc etc. but wouldn't feel comfortable doing so when strictly speaking she owns it.

Is there a way that legally i can be a part owner , whilst highly unlikely to get a mortgage myself ?

Obviously i would be paying towards the mortgage........

Any advice/ideas would be appreciated

thanks in advance

Caladan

Yes. You can be on the deeds of the property but not on the Mortgage.

Still, that means she takes all the responsibility should you not be able to make the payments, which is a bad deal for her (I'm sure you'll be together forever of course, but you might not).

She's also unlikely to be able to borrow on minimum wage (and if so the amount will be small).

You're better off paying down your 7.5k debt for the next couple of years and saving a decent deposit so you can apply together. If you're still together after that then good for you, you're probably in a good place to buy a home.

Little point committing to a Mortgage when you have outstanding unsecured debt, especially when it's that high.

Sorry to sound harsh, but blunt is sometimes best.

kingstreet

Obtain all three versions of your credit file and arrange to see an independent mortgage broker when you have them.

Equifax

https://www.econsumer.equifax.co.uk/consumer/uk/order.ehtml?prod_cd=UKSCR

CallCredit

https://www.noddle.co.uk

Experian

http://www.experian.co.uk/consumer/statutory-report.html#orderReport

You get all three because they don't all show the same things and mortgage lenders don't take data from all three.

Yorkie1

Caladan wrote: »

Yes. You can be on the deeds of the property but not on the Mortgage.

Are you sure about this?

Lenders rarely like there to be more owners than on the mortgage, because it causes problems if they need to repossess.

Landofwood

Caladan wrote: »

Yes. You can be on the deeds of the property but not on the Mortgage.

Still, that means she takes all the responsibility should you not be able to make the payments, which is a bad deal for her (I'm sure you'll be together forever of course, but you might not).

She's also unlikely to be able to borrow on minimum wage (and if so the amount will be small).

You're better off paying down your 7.5k debt for the next couple of years and saving a decent deposit so you can apply together. If you're still together after that then good for you, you're probably in a good place to buy a home.

Little point committing to a Mortgage when you have outstanding unsecured debt, especially when it's that high.

Sorry to sound harsh, but blunt is sometimes best.

Sounds like nonsense to me.

Thrugelmir

Caladan wrote: »

Yes. You can be on the deeds of the property but not on the Mortgage.

Wrong way round. On the mortgage but not the deeds.

On the deeds would result in the lender having no power to repossess the property. As there would be no contractual arrangement between you and the lender.

If you have money saved. Start by clearing your debts.

kingstreet

HSBC still permits more owners than borrowers. Only lender to do so at this time.

Caladan

Ahem. It may be rare, but it is allowed (at least legally, and I am 99% sure in practice). If I am wrong, I will eat my proverbial hat and socks.

As long as anyone with ownership of the property signs consent to the Mortgage following legal advice explaining the implications, there should be no problem with repossession.

I have seen several cases in the last 12 months where for one reason or another, only one borrower is on the Mortgage even though the property is in joint names.

Or I may be delusional. Entirely possible and quite enjoyable if true.

Yorkie1

Caladan wrote: »

Ahem. It may be rare, but it is allowed (at least legally, and I am 99% sure in practice). If I am wrong, I will eat my proverbial hat and socks.

As KS says, only 1 lender permits it at present. So whilst it is possible, it is rare - which your initial post did not make clear.

Just didn't want the OP thinking that it was the case with all lenders, and proceeding on that misapprehension.