Help my friend - I've NEVER heard of this before, is it legal?

csgohan4

No

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

Your the one being smart about the OP and the post they made not me as I was defending the wording of it, I also care not what you think of my spelling and grammar and think that you just are choosing to be a ignorant idiot here.

As posted previously :-

Dear Punctuation,

I want you inside of me.

Sincerely,

Quotation Marks

Interesting choice of words, I shall quietly run away then, covering my back side while I'm at it

Marvel1

No

Based on those, why I never bother with leasehold, always freehold.

AndyBSG

micky007 wrote: »

I've borrowed them the cash to pay for the deposit to help them buy their own place.

Not related to the OP's questions but this stood out for me.

Does your friends mortgage provider know they couldn't actually afford a deposit and have instead taken on a private debt to enable them to buy?

If they haven't declared your loan(and the potential beneficial interest this could give you in the property) then the Mortgage Lender has every right to cancel any mortgage offer they make.

marksoton

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

I see the pedantic crew are out in force as usual picking over peoples wording on posts, I would take a guess a the OP is based in Northern Ireland or Scotland by saying they borrowed there friend money and why people feel the need to jump on such trivial part of a post is beyond me.

It is just getting worse on this forum with people who feel it is indeed okay to pick at others writing or comments so much, If you do not like the way a post is written and the terms used then it is better you say nothing at all rather than come on with the put downs, Childish behaviour from a select few as usual.

Really? That's what you've taken from the whole ridiculous, stupid original post?

I've 50K lying around, if you put a vote online and they say yes i'll give it to you to buy a property.

Exactly.

steampowered

Yes

Personally, I would be prepared to proceed. Those clauses don't sound too bad to me and are more common than you may think.

I recently bought a flat in London which was built by a major developer a few years ago. My lease has a few similar clauses.

For example I am not allowed to have a dish protruding from the building, not allowed to hang washing on the balcony and a few other things. The clauses are designed to maintain the appearance (and therefore value) of the building for the benefit of all residents.

The clauses about not having vans, not having sky dishes and keeping the garden in order sound reasonable. I suppose they are about maintaining the appearance of the property. The clause about sky dishes is a very common one.

The clause about inspecting the inside of the house seems a bit less reasonable to me although I think I could live with it, as the chances of it ever actually being enforced must be minimal. Have you read it carefully - is just there to stop disrepair rather than to say I don't like the look of the wallpaper?

In reality these type of clauses are very rarely enforced.

Stevie_Palimo

marksoton wrote: »

Really? That's what you've taken from the whole ridiculous, stupid original post?

I've 50K lying around, if you put a vote online and they say yes i'll give it to you to buy a property.

Exactly.

What a very strange analogy by a very strange individual !!!!!!!!

AnotherJoe

No

davidmcn wrote: »

Or possibly the OP is lending the mother some money, with no obligation on the purchaser to repay anyone, in which case the gifted deposit becomes slightly more legitimate (but still liable to be discovered once the solicitors ask for the source of funds).

Though given the OP's posting history I am suspecting a wind-up.

The OP is obviously giving or lending money to the mother in order to attempt to fool the solicitor & lender as to the source of the money. So when the mother signs to say its a gift, potentially all three parties are committing mortgage fraud, two directly and one (mother) by knowingly aiding the fraud.

If there is no need to repay, there was no need to attempt (very clumsily) to hide the source of the funds.

TBeckett100

Just wait until the solicitor asks for proof of this deposit. Sometimes a signed letter will not suffice and bank statement will need to be produced. When it shows a third party paying money into the account it will trigger alarm bells which sound like money laundering.

It isn't going to go well I am afraid

marksoton

Stevie_Palimo wrote: »

What a very strange analogy by a very strange individual !!!!!!!!

It was a simile not an analogy.

And you've just proved my point.

Mobeer

Yes

3 & 4 appear common

1 & 2 are about the leaseholder having to keep their property in a good state of repair. The wording of these seems extreme but the idea isn't unusual.