buying with a "friend"?

beeza650

I will be buying a home for us (my partner and our baby) as soon as I find one.
Things are a bit complicated and maybe we won't stay together.
She has a 35% share, part mortgaged, of a shared ownership property.
I've offered to buy out the housing association so that the property can be let (it's not allowed by Catalyst).
The house and bills would stay in her name and the 2 rooms let individually.
This way I have a place to invest (I'm hoping to buy the other house cash + there will be surplus) and she doesn't lose her home to go back to if things don't work out.

Do you guys have any thoughts on how to structure this legally? How much "rent" I should charge if she moves back in etc etc. Just really want to bounce ideas back and forth really please.

Thanks

whitewing

Isn't it more likely that she would remain in the new house with the child and you would have to move out if you split up? (Especially if you did something to accelerate the end of the relationship).

I would suggest that maybe you shouldn't move in together if you already think the relationship is doomed? Or are you just being 'realistically practical'?

Guest101

So you break up and she agrees for whatever reason to me be back in there, how exactly do you think the tenants will react?

It could take 6 months or more to evict them.

beeza650

The new house would be in my name. She wouldn't want the overhead of a big house. If we decide not to live together it will be before our child starts school etc. As for tenants, yes they could make it difficult but remember they are only renting a room so far less likely to make it problematic.
We already live together in the shared ownership house and it's def worth giving it a go in the new place

AnotherJoe

You say what is her current house, after you bought it, would be in her name so although you are buying it are you really giving it to her ?

Because if you aren't, why would you propose charging her rent if she moved back into her house ????

Ps re the tenants, the fact they are only renting a room wouldn't make any difference, if the landlord doesn't live in the house, it's my understanding they essentially have full legal rights as if they were renting the whole house.

Dan-Dan

This all smells of a convuluted way to cash in via the taxpayer

Pixie5740

The tenants won't just be renting a room though will they. The will be full blown tenants, not excluded occupiers because the landlord will not be living with them. If the HA doesn't permit sub-letting the property then it's a non-starter anyway.

If you did buy the shared ownership property (I'm assuming without a mortgage) and keep it in her name then she will be the legal owner and you won't be able to charge her any rent.

Guest101

beeza650 wrote: »

The new house would be in my name. She wouldn't want the overhead of a big house. If we decide not to live together it will be before our child starts school etc. As for tenants, yes they could make it difficult but remember they are only renting a room so far less likely to make it problematic.
We already live together in the shared ownership house and it's def worth giving it a go in the new place

How is renting a room far less problematic? Theyre still tenants with full rights.

davidmcn

beeza650 wrote: »

This way I have a place to invest (I'm hoping to buy the other house cash + there will be surplus) and she doesn't lose her home to go back to if things don't work out.

But she will have, because you'll be the owner (and apparently keen to view your child and ex-partner's home as your "investment"). Why would that be better from her point of view than the status quo?

Guest101

AnotherJoe wrote: »

You say what is her current house, after you bought it, would be in her name so although you are buying it are you really giving it to her ?

Because if you aren't, why would you propose charging her rent if she moved back into her house ????

Ps re the tenants, the fact they are only renting a room wouldn't make any difference, if the landlord doesn't live in the house, it's my understanding they essentially have full legal rights as if they were renting the whole house.

Not quite, but basically.


The LL is renting them a room, and the room is the same rights as renting a house.


So whilst the have shared common areas, they are still tenants.

beeza650

Why wouldn't I? I'm basically loaning her the money. She currently pays rent on that which is lower than mortgage interest. My idea is that her outgoings would remain the same and I would maybe benefit from any increase in value when it comes time to sell. If she gets a better job and wants to buy me out at any time then cool but I would be in no hurry as remember its a roof over my daughters head too.