buying with a "friend"?

Guest101

beeza650 wrote: »

errrr...........so if that's not true then > 50% of tenancy scenarios go against the wishes of the owner. Surely it's safe to say there be lot less landlords around if that were the case. I know I've never heard of a problematic tenant (in terms of vacating the property) first hand.

Most LLs accept there are statutory restrictions for a reason and work with them, not try to avoid them

TBagpuss

The simplest way to do it waould be for you to lend her the money to buy the remaining 65% ofher house. You would need to have a charge over the houe to secure the debt, and to agree hwo/when it would be repaid.

If she then lets out the hosue she will of course have to comply with all relevent rules about becoming a landlord.

If she is going to move in with you it would also be sensible t consider a cohabitation agrement to ensure that you are both clear about whether, and in what circumstnaces, she might ever become entitled to any interest in your property, for instnace if she contributed towards costs etc.

A second option would be for you to buy out the HA so that you and she ownedher property, and to have a Declaration of Trust seting out that you own 65% and she owns 35%. In thsat case, you would need to ansurethat the trust deed also set out clearly how each of you could trigger a sale, and who was responsible for what in terms of outgoings. However, as this arrangements would mean that you would own more than one property, you would have to pay the higher level of Stamp Duty and would also potentially have a CGT liabilty when the property is sold.

beeza650

Guest101 wrote: »

Most LLs accept there are statutory restrictions for a reason and work with them, not try to avoid them

..then I guess you'll be pleased to hear I have every intention of being one of "most" landlords.

re: lodger or tenant- I've been both, probably in equal shares.

Guys I'm hearing you loud and clear - read up on being a landlord - I will.
I will not be avoiding anything / breaking any laws etc.
It is most likely (and yes I used the word again) that the people who rent the rooms will be more than reasonable if, and I hope it's a big if, my partner and child decide to move back.
Should things not go smoothly then we have acceptable options.

Guest101

beeza650 wrote: »

..then I guess you'll be pleased to hear I have every intention of being one of "most" landlords.

re: lodger or tenant- I've been both, probably in equal shares.

Guys I'm hearing you loud and clear - read up on being a landlord - I will.
I will not be avoiding anything / breaking any laws etc.
It is most likely (and yes I used the word again) that the people who rent the rooms will be more than reasonable if, and I hope it's a big if, my partner and child decide to move back.
Should things not go smoothly then we have acceptable options.

Glad to hear it. Reading 'they won't like a baby screaming the house down' etc isn't the right attitude.

You'll be more likely to avoid difficult tenants by having 1 agreement rather than 2, and renting the whole house out.

beeza650

TBagpuss wrote: »

The simplest way to do it waould be for you to lend her the money to buy the remaining 65% ofher house. You would need to have a charge over the houe to secure the debt, and to agree hwo/when it would be repaid.

If she then lets out the hosue she will of course have to comply with all relevent rules about becoming a landlord.

If she is going to move in with you it would also be sensible t consider a cohabitation agrement to ensure that you are both clear about whether, and in what circumstnaces, she might ever become entitled to any interest in your property, for instnace if she contributed towards costs etc.

A second option would be for you to buy out the HA so that you and she ownedher property, and to have a Declaration of Trust seting out that you own 65% and she owns 35%. In thsat case, you would need to ansurethat the trust deed also set out clearly how each of you could trigger a sale, and who was responsible for what in terms of outgoings. However, as this arrangements would mean that you would own more than one property, you would have to pay the higher level of Stamp Duty and would also potentially have a CGT liabilty when the property is sold.

I'll look into cohabitation agreements and how to arrange a charge over the house thanks. Me becoming part, or whole owner, whilst perhaps giving me more security adds to the initial and long term costs so is probably not a route we'd go down though I would need to sit down with a pen and paper and work out exactly what they are.

I have a feeling a loan is going to the lowest cost way to move on this.

beeza650

Guest101 wrote: »

Glad to hear it. Reading 'they won't like a baby screaming the house down' etc isn't the right attitude.

You'll be more likely to avoid difficult tenants by having 1 agreement rather than 2, and renting the whole house out.

...nor is a tenant agreeing to a short notice period then invoking their statutory rights. Both are well within the law but that's not how "nice" people do stuff.

We'd prefer the two tenants approach because the rooms are equal sized plus the return would be higher plus we're much more likely to get people who would move with a shorter notice. We've not considered it from all angles yet though and renting as a whole could be (probably is) a less hassle option.

duchy

Why don't you just move in with her and rent out another property (where you would have lived otherwise).

She and the child have full security as whilst you live there you can contribute to bills (but not mortgage) and if you do split up the child doesn't have the added disruption of having to move home as you would be moving out.

If your relationships lasts then you could staircase later on -maybe upon marriage.

Kynthia

If she needs to move back into the property once she owns it either wholly by herself with a loan to you, or jointly with you, will she needs benefits to assist her? At the moment she can get assistance to pay the HA rent but I'm not so sure she'd get LHA to pay a loan to you or rent due to you being a connected person. You might be making her situation less secure.

Guest101

beeza650 wrote: »

...nor is a tenant agreeing to a short notice period then invoking their statutory rights. Both are well within the law but that's not how "nice" people do stuff.

We'd prefer the two tenants approach because the rooms are equal sized plus the return would be higher plus we're much more likely to get people who would move with a shorter notice. We've not considered it from all angles yet though and renting as a whole could be (probably is) a less hassle option.

The tenant is with in the law.

You moving in with your young child and causing mayhem would be harassment, a criminal offence. Just FYI

beeza650

duchy wrote: »

Why don't you just move in with her and rent out another property (where you would have lived otherwise).

Where she lives is too small for us and makes my commute longer than it needs to be (we live together now)