100% mortgages

Thrugelmir

Starting a Help to Buy ISA each, with whatever they can scrimp and save would be a start. At the end of the day much is down to personal choice and how badly you really want something. Takes time to save for a deposit there's no short cuts.

carina62

Yes, I fully agree with what you all say to be honest so there is no easy solution really. If they get a Help to Buy ISA each then they just have to go with that option and private renting is very expensive and a mortgage would make their monthly payments just as costly. I've told them they are not alone in this. What I don't understand is that they have tried to get a bigger property via the housing association that they are with currently but they said they can't help because they already have somewhere to live.

AnotherJoe

carina62 wrote: »

It's a bit of a long story but they hate living where they are at the moment (rented accommodation via housing association/council) as the property is too small (she has a 10 year old son and a baby) and she has 2 dogs. They can't afford private renting as it's so expensive and they would rather put the money towards a deposit so the only way I could help is become a Guarantor on their mortgage or use some of my equity as collateral. I think Barclays sound the best option but not sure how it works fully yet.

100% seems premature.

Have you done the research on what they would need to borrow in order to get a house that is of a size that they would like, what size of deposit you would need to provide, whether thats a size you can afford by remortgaging, and whether that would be reachable on their salaries and affordable ?

I'm guessing no to all those?

carina62

I think their only option at the moment is to rent privately if they wish to move out of their current property and go with that until they can afford a good deposit for a mortgage.

DomRavioli

carina62 wrote: »

Yes, I fully agree with what you all say to be honest so there is no easy solution really. If they get a Help to Buy ISA each then they just have to go with that option and private renting is very expensive and a mortgage would make their monthly payments just as costly. I've told them they are not alone in this. What I don't understand is that they have tried to get a bigger property via the housing association that they are with currently but they said they can't help because they already have somewhere to live.

They will not be offered a change of accomodation - social housing rules state that they are a 2 bed need in a 2 bed property. They have zero priority; one bed for the parents and baby (any under 1's can share with parents), one for the 10 year old. If the baby and the 10 year old are the same sex they will always be a 2 bed need as same sex can share. They are in affordable housing; they need a reality check, not a house move.

And just as an aside, why do you think they would be offered somewhere different to live? They have safe, secure housing.

Perhaps get them to come on here, we will happily dole out some of the reality to them.

AnotherJoe

DomRavioli wrote: »

And just as an aside, why do you think they would be offered somewhere different to live? They have safe, secure housing.

Well they have two dogs so surely that entitles them to an extra room, plus a large garden (size dependent upon the type of dog, obviously), plus extra income due to the expense of the dogs? Feeding, vets etc.

Its grossly unfair that even though they have these extra expenses no one will cater specifically to their needs.

csgohan4

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Well they have two dogs so surely that entitles them to an extra room, plus a large garden (size dependent upon the type of dog, obviously), plus extra income due to the expense of the dogs? Feeding, vets etc.

Its grossly unfair that even though they have these extra expenses no one will cater specifically to their needs.

Are councils obliged to house the dogs as well?? I thought it was a choice to get dogs? Surely dogs cannot be worth more than humans? Social housing is already rare already, but to cater for those with pets?

DomRavioli

csgohan4 wrote: »

Are councils obliged to house the dogs as well?? I thought it was a choice to get dogs? Surely dogs cannot be worth more than humans? Social housing is already rare already, but to cater for those with pets?

I hope the poster was being sarcastic - it did come across that way.

But no, social housing caters for humans only.

AnotherJoe

csgohan4 wrote: »

Are councils obliged to house the dogs as well?? I thought it was a choice to get dogs? Surely dogs cannot be worth more than humans? Social housing is already rare already, but to cater for those with pets?

LOL. I thought a smiley would somewhat detract from the sarcasm but perhaps I should reconsider next time?

Dird

carina62 wrote: »

They can't afford private renting as it's so expensive and they would rather put the money towards a deposit so the only way I could help is become a Guarantor on their mortgage or use some of my equity as collateral.

These 2 statements are unrelated. It should be them staying put and putting money towards a deposit, not you remortgaging for them. How much are they saving currently in their reduced rental property? If the answer is basically £0 like my sister then they won't, and shouldn't, be getting a mortgage any time soon.

evansc1 wrote: »

Two dependents will take a lot out of their affordability, especially with youngest being a baby - they may not want to say goodbye to them but sounds like sacrifices need to be made

Bit harsh :eek: I was gonna say they should have avoided the 2nd kid if already struggling but you're next level. At least they would still have the dogs for comfort though.

csgohan4 wrote: »

Surely dogs cannot be worth more than humans?

I find myself a lot less annoyed by dogs. They just want the occassional fuss & food. None of this free housing with more bedrooms and free water out of "principal", much less self-entitlement