Right to acquire with no income

kingstreet

The only way this works is using the 'joint borrower, sole proprietor' mortgage route.

They would be parties to the mortgage with you, but only you would own the property.

Whether this can be achieved for the purchase described, I don't know. I would also question why anyone with any sense would take 100% liability for a mortgage over a property in which they have no interest.

gettingtheresometime

Wouldn’t the sensible course of action be to get a job first & then buy the property?

Me thinks there’s something going on in the background which the OP may or may not be aware of

[Deleted User]

Remember also that you don't have to bestow a house or its value on your daughter to have any value in your daughters life (particularly when presumably you got the property when desperate and it means that house won't be available to anyone else in a similar position). Other things are far far more important.

gingercordial

If your sister could buy it with a mortgage in her name (unlikely that the RTB rules would allow this but let's pretend it does) and if she or her husband already owns a house (the one they live in?) they will need to pay the extra 3% stamp duty on buying an additional property.

The only way this might work is for her to give you all the cash for the entire purchase price and you buy it in your name alone for cash. She cannot "sort all the financial stuff" for you as it would have to be all in your name. Your benefits will stop though. And as soon as something goes wrong with the house, such as the boiler failing, or the roof being damaged, or (if it's a block) the council deciding they want to repair the outside and handing you a bill, you will have to go begging to her to give you more cash. Is that really the relationship you want with her?

Wait until you have this job you're intending to get, then see if you can get a mortgage yourself.

[Deleted User]

The right to acquire covers yourself and other members of your family - The mortgage and also the tenancy needs to be in the same names.

So 1 person tenancy (You) - They can buy with say their brother etc but both names need to be on the mortgage and also right to acquire documents. You can get a mortgage with benefits but they all need to be declared and you wouldn't be entitled to certain benefits as a homeowner whether you were paying or not.

The thing with your sister would mean she owns the house with yourself - They cannot buy the house for you.

[Deleted User]

Also if you die then your tenancy can be transferred automatically once to someone who has lived in the property for 12 months I believe. So could transfer to your daughter that way.

Whangarei

HampshireH wrote: »

She will be benefiting from being the owner of a property she isn't entitled to a discount on.

But I will be the one on the deeds/owner and it's my discount that I am entitled to is it not? Is the owner the one with the name on the property or the one paying the mortgage (genuine question)?

Whangarei

kingstreet wrote: »

The only way this works is using the 'joint borrower, sole proprietor' mortgage route.

They would be parties to the mortgage with you, but only you would own the property.

Whether this can be achieved for the purchase described, I don't know. I would also question why anyone with any sense would take 100% liability for a mortgage over a property in which they have no interest.

This is interesting, thanks Kingstreet, will look into it.

Whangarei

My sister or her husband could have put themselves on my tenancy and pretended to live with me for 12 month thus giving them the right to buy the property with me but we know that wouldn't be right (or even legal??) hence why we looked at this option. Their names will not be on the paperwork but merely helping out financially. If her name was Barclays Bank I suspect there wouldn't be a problem...that's if a bank was to ever give interest free free money

gingercordial

Whangarei wrote: »

But I will be the one on the deeds/owner and it's my discount that I am entitled to is it not? Is the owner the one with the name on the property or the one paying the mortgage (genuine question)?

The problem is that almost all mortgage lenders require them to be the same people.

Say it was allowed and person A is on the mortgage and person B is on the deeds.

Person A stops paying the mortgage, and the bank wants to repossess. How can they when person A doesn't own it? Person B isn't part of the mortgage contract so the bank would have no right to take their house. So the bank is stuck, no more repayments and no ability to repossess to get their money back that way.

This is why mortgage lenders do not allow that.

The "joint mortgage, sole proprietor" option has been mentioned, where both A & B are on the mortgage but only B owns, so if A stops paying the bank can still repossess from B, but these are rare and there may not be a lender who does them for RTB.