Does joint mortgage mean you must have joint ownership?

kingstreet

louisck wrote: »

Yes exactly. That is exactly the scenario. I just want to know how I can ensure the house will end up being 100% mine in the future. The person has promised me they will give up their 50% ownership and make me the sole 100% owner. I just want to protect myself and ensure that even if they change their mind, I will end up having 100% of the house.

The answer is as I gave earlier, joint borrower, sole proprietor. That's what's known in the trade as a guarantor mortgage. You will be the only owner of the property, so if this person already owns another property, you will avoid the stamp duty second property surcharge too...

louisck

Thank you for fully answering my question. I have given you 'thank you' to show appreciation. And I also appreciated everyone else's input. Have a good day/night everyone! :T:T

barbiedoll

kingstreet wrote: »

The answer is as I gave earlier, joint borrower, sole proprietor. That's what's known in the trade as a guarantor mortgage. You will be the only owner of the property, so if this person already owns another property, you will avoid the stamp duty second property surcharge too...

Forgive my ignorance but does "guarantor" in this instance mean the same as a guarantor to (for example) a rental or loan agreement? As in, the guarantor would be liable for the debt if the sole proprietor didn't pay?

If so, why on earth would they relinquish their share? They would be liable for a debt on a property but they wouldn't be able to sell it to get their money back?

Sorry to OP for picking up their thread when they have clearly already got the answer they want but am just curious as how this works in real life. Who uses these mortgages? Surely if parents want to help their offspring to buy, wouldn't they just gift them the money? I can't see many people trusting a partner or friend with this sort of arrangement, but maybe that's just me after being on this site for too long.

Does the guarantor avoid the second home stamp duty surcharge?

marliepanda

Plus the property is already bought so a bit late to change the mortgage product...

Marvel1

IMO only a fool (without seeking legal advice) would be on the joint mortgage (liable if one does not pay) but not on deeds.

davidmcn

barbiedoll wrote: »

Surely if parents want to help their offspring to buy, wouldn't they just gift them the money?

They might not have a lump sum available (but have a good enough income that they could step in to help with mortgage payments if necessary).

and/or they might want their offspring to be paying their own way (until they actually have problems) rather than freeloading off them.

or the child might not qualify for a mortgage in their own name because of e.g their employment status or credit record, even with a gifted deposit, but the lender is comfortable with a guarantor added

Does the guarantor avoid the second home stamp duty surcharge?

That too.

kingstreet

barbiedoll wrote: »

Forgive my ignorance but does "guarantor" in this instance mean the same as a guarantor to (for example) a rental or loan agreement? As in, the guarantor would be liable for the debt if the sole proprietor didn't pay?

If so, why on earth would they relinquish their share? They would be liable for a debt on a property but they wouldn't be able to sell it to get their money back?

Sorry to OP for picking up their thread when they have clearly already got the answer they want but am just curious as how this works in real life. Who uses these mortgages? Surely if parents want to help their offspring to buy, wouldn't they just gift them the money? I can't see many people trusting a partner or friend with this sort of arrangement, but maybe that's just me after being on this site for too long.

Does the guarantor avoid the second home stamp duty surcharge?

A guarantor accepts responsibility for the whole mortgage, yes.

Why on earth would they relinquish their share?

That's not for me to decide. I present a solution to a need and it's upto the recipient to get the right professional advice. The OP is talking about 99/1 share split, so not too far away from what I am suggesting and yes...

... the SDLT surcharge is avoided.