buying with a "friend"?

davidmcn

beeza650 wrote: »

Because she has the safety net of a home she likes if it doesn't work out

The safety net of a home where she is the owner/secure tenant seems, er, safer than the safety net of the same home where she's merely - what - on an AST? Relying on your good nature?

Guest101

davidmcn wrote: »

The safety net of a home where she is the owner/secure tenant seems, er, safer than the safety net of the same home where she's merely - what - on an AST? Relying on your good nature?

I think it's more likely to be 'do as I say, or you wont like it when I move dave in to the property' - much like he thinks he can treat with other tenants.

beeza650

Guest101 wrote: »

On a side note, given the incredibly controlling tendencies shown in this post, the points are mostly moot.


The GF will wake up to it one day, report the OP for domestic abuse and keep the house (with a non-mol to boot)

Hang on I'm trying to give her options here and to plan in case things don't work out . That's in both our best interests and the child's.

Guest101

beeza650 wrote: »

Hang on I'm trying to give her options here and to plan in case things don't work out . That's in both our best interests and the child's.

Not quite though is it.


You are taking away her absolute security in a property, renting it out to two people, who you expect to up and leave if things go wrong, so she can move back in and pay you rent and have no security.


Since your first post said "Things are a bit complicated and maybe we won't stay together." - it's probably a sign not to actually do this, for both of you!


You seem to think it's ok to force someone out of their home by virtue of your own child making in unbearable.


So far the only person who's interests you are protecting is your own.


If you were doing this for your child, the house would be in your GFs name and you would have one each. She would have an income and so would you.

beeza650

Pay me rent? I put the word in quotes. She pays rent to catalyst. Call it what you like. The only two other options are we don't move to new house together which is an outcome neither of us want or she sells up which again, and especially for her is not something we want

Jhoney_2

beeza650 wrote: »

That's something we would need to formally and legally agree. Maybe I could become part owner too but we want to keep this simple and not add cost when there are alternatives.

Your suggestions are the absolute opposite of simple. If things are complicated/uncertain already, why not stay in your respective homes and spend as much time together as you mutually want? Thus the only issue becomes one of travel/planning.

Everything else is highly speculative and will make things worse, not better.

If she moves out, the lodger(s) become tenants, so she cannot then just stroll back in. At that point, their deposits need to be protected (by the LL - she, the owner - with one of the 3 officials companies - read up on that as posted above) and they have full rights as if they had rented.

Your alternatives just have no basis in what is achievable and the relationship (for whatever reason) sounds fragile at best.

Not judging, but you may need to do a rethink in terms of why all of this sounds like a good idea in the first place?

Guest101

beeza650 wrote: »

Pay me rent? I put the word in quotes. She pays rent to catalyst. Call it what you like. The only two other options are we don't move to new house together which is an outcome neither of us want or she sells up which again, and especially for her is not something we want

She does pay some 'rent' but in exchange she has FULL security.


What are you offering?


and other options... Or you buy the property, in her name, with a charge on it, as pixie explained earlier....


P.S. given you've ignored everything about tenants rights so far, you either shouldn't be a LL or be prepared for a very expensive legal lesson

beeza650

davidmcn wrote: »

The safety net of a home where she is the owner/secure tenant seems, er, safer than the safety net of the same home where she's merely - what - on an AST? Relying on your good nature?

Hang on - she'd be the owner (as she is now) no AST nothing like. Not sure where you're coming from if if I've not explained things well.

beeza650

Re: tenants - of course I will do the necessary research there and play it by the book. Remember that far more tenancies go perfectly smoothly than go sour and that most tenants who sign a contract with a one month notice period will keep to that if the owner and young baby wish to return.

I guess there's no need to answer the what am I offering qu. again.

Pixie5740

A one month notice period for whom? Not the landlord because a) landlord's notice doesn't end the tenancy and b) you can't override statutory law with your contract.

G_M a regular contributor to the board and a landlord has created a thread with lots of useful information for landlords and tenants alike which you might find useful.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5180214