On a first time buyer mortgage wanting to rent with my BF in another city

FoxFinance24

propertyrental said:

If you 'rent with your boyfriend, then your boyfriend's property will be your main residence. The implication on your mortgage is that you will be in breach of its terms ie that you maintain your owned and mortgaged property as your main home.

As my job would be still in my current city, I would be regularly spending days/nights in my house. I’m trying to understand what is the definition of “main home”.
Also, the lodger should be still a lodger and not a tenant as I wouldn’t have moved out, most of my stuff would be in the property and I would be spending time there regularly. Am I correct to think this makes them a lodger and not a tenant?

FoxFinance24

propertyrental said: Are you not maintaining two houses at present?

At the moment my boyfriend lives in a share house. He would be moving to a self contained place to allow for my more frequent visits.

Bookworm105

FoxFinance24 said:

propertyrental said:

If you 'rent with your boyfriend, then your boyfriend's property will be your main residence. The implication on your mortgage is that you will be in breach of its terms ie that you maintain your owned and mortgaged property as your main home.

As my job would be still in my current city, I would be regularly spending days/nights in my house. I’m trying to understand what is the definition of “main home”.
Also, the lodger should be still a lodger and not a tenant as I wouldn’t have moved out, most of my stuff would be in the property and I would be spending time there regularly. Am I correct to think this makes them a lodger and not a tenant?

Given you are not legally married, the question of "main home" will become a "matter of the facts", which in your case will be not clear cut either way. These sort of issues have been considered in court and set a legal precedent for assessing the position:

- where do you spend most of your time (you have a partner, it would be normal to assume "togetherness")
- are you on the tenancy at another property 
- Is one property an obvious commute to your workplace and the other is not. Apply same question to your partner's commute.
- where would friends normally expect to find you if they wanted to go out with you (is your social life obviously geographically based)
- where is the doctor & dentist for each of you
- where are you each registered to vote
- what address is used for your car insurance (have you divulged both addresses and what did you say for where you usually keep it overnight)
- do utility bills show usage that supports a pattern of living at one (or both) property
- what address is used by those writing to you (banks, credit card, utilities, etc) 

just because you only own one property does not make them a lodger if it is not your main home (eg you could be renting somewhere else yourself)

propertyrental

It was not clear from your initial post how much time you would/would not be spending with your bf. You initially said:

"now we’re talking about moving together." which is pretty clear. Your main residence would be with your bf.

However if you are now saying "I would be regularly spending days/nights in my house" that throws into doubt whether you've actually moved in with bf or not.

As Bookworm105 says, the realities of your lifestyle and situation would determine where your main residence was, and that in turn would determine the lodger/tenant issue.

If you remained registered with your current local doctor/dentist, if your bank(s), HMRC, DVLA, DWP, and your employer all had your current address, that would strengthen your claim to be 'living' at your current address as your main residence, but it is hardly compatible with your claim to be "talking about moving together."

What you would be talking about is maintaining your existing relationship whereby you visit you bf for weekends, occassional weekdays etc, but NOT "moving together."

FoxFinance24

I see what generated the confusion. We have been on a long distance relationship for few months and now we’re talking about a possible future together. I mentioned already I wouldn’t be leaving my job, that requires me to regularly attend the office in my hometown and I am not considering moving out from my house at this stage, so I guess my house would still be my main place of residence, even if my visits to the bf would be more frequent and longer.

Thank you Bookworm105 for your input. It makes much more sense now!

Sistergold

There is nothing wrong with being with boyfriend some days and being in your property some days. Does your boyfriend need you to pay rent? It will be better if you could only contribute to food/electricity as you will be going up and down and paying mortgage on your property for now. It will also mean you have your house to go back to if the relationship does not work out as hoped( in the short term.)