We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
We're aware that some users are currently experiencing errors on the Forum. Our tech team is working to resolve the issue. Thanks for your patience.

Stamp duty payable on transfer of equity on second property

I've been asked if I would go on the mortgage for a relative of mine. Leaving aside the risk of being on the mortgage which in well aware of and have covered, am I correct that as I already own a house this would trigger a stamp duty charge of 3%

Comments

  • foxy-stoat
    foxy-stoat Posts: 6,879 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    You are correct.
  • SDLT_Geek
    SDLT_Geek Posts: 3,051 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    It would only trigger the extra 3% SDLT if OP takes a share in the ownership of the property. Taking on liability on a mortgage does not necessarily involve having a share in the property.
  • SDLT_Geek wrote: »
    It would only trigger the extra 3% SDLT if OP takes a share in the ownership of the property. Taking on liability on a mortgage does not necessarily involve having a share in the property.
    That's what I'm not sure of does it not constitute taking a share of property?
  • I assumed you couldn't be added to a mortgage on a property without having an interest in it. Might be my fault for describing it as transfer of equity but that's what I thought it was. I ve been asked to be added to a relatives mortgage. I wouldn't have a need to be added to the he title of the property but assumed I couldn't do one without the other (as I say leaving aside any concerns about doing this fro a protection pov which is understood and covered)
  • SDLT_Geek
    SDLT_Geek Posts: 3,051 Forumite
    Eighth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    In the old days this kind of arrangement (where you get no share in the property) used to be called a guarantor mortgages. Now they are often called Joint Borrower Sole Proprietor mortgages. The SDLT implications (though in a different context) are discussed in this article: https://www.taxadvisermagazine.com/article/additional-properties
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 354.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 247.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 604.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.5K Life & Family
  • 261.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.