I'm not a first time buyer but my partner is

jgandhi

I already own a property but am buying a house to live in with my partner (we're not married). Obviously, the stamp duty is much higher because I already own a property and just looking at ways to reduce that. Could we just buy the property in my partner's name so we benefit from the stamp duty relief that gives? It would save a lot of money, but is that allowed and advisable? My partner earns a much lower salary than me and wouldn't be able to pay the mortgage on their own. Thanks for any advice!

ACG

You could potentially look at joint borrower, sole proprieter - thats where you are both on the mortgage but only your partner on the deeds. 

However that means your liable for the mortgage and do not own the property. It puts you in a vulnerable position. 

silvercar

ACG said:

You could potentially look at joint borrower, sole proprieter - thats where you are both on the mortgage but only your partner on the deeds. 

However that means you’re liable for the mortgage and do not own the property. It puts you in a vulnerable position. 

@ACG would they both be able to live in the property with a JBSP mortgage? When we did this for our offspring I thought we had to sign something that we weren’t going to live in the property, though that maybe something from the solicitor (it requires the second borrower to take independent legal advice) rather than the lender.

DE_612183

You will own two residential properties - therefore higher Stamp Duty applies.

If there was a loophole a lot more people would be doing it.

ACG

silvercar said:

ACG said:

You could potentially look at joint borrower, sole proprieter - thats where you are both on the mortgage but only your partner on the deeds. 

However that means you’re liable for the mortgage and do not own the property. It puts you in a vulnerable position. 

@ACG would they both be able to live in the property with a JBSP mortgage? When we did this for our offspring I thought we had to sign something that we weren’t going to live in the property, though that maybe something from the solicitor (it requires the second borrower to take independent legal advice) rather than the lender.

Good question. 
I dont know the answer, but I would imagine they can if they sign an over 17 waiver. 

user1977

ACG said:

silvercar said:

ACG said:

You could potentially look at joint borrower, sole proprieter - thats where you are both on the mortgage but only your partner on the deeds. 

However that means you’re liable for the mortgage and do not own the property. It puts you in a vulnerable position. 

@ACG would they both be able to live in the property with a JBSP mortgage? When we did this for our offspring I thought we had to sign something that we weren’t going to live in the property, though that maybe something from the solicitor (it requires the second borrower to take independent legal advice) rather than the lender.

Good question. 
I dont know the answer, but I would imagine they can if they sign an over 17 waiver. 

I think the concern would be that they're acquiring an interest in the property by contributing to the mortgage payments.

ACG

user1977 said:

ACG said:

silvercar said:

ACG said:

You could potentially look at joint borrower, sole proprieter - thats where you are both on the mortgage but only your partner on the deeds. 

However that means you’re liable for the mortgage and do not own the property. It puts you in a vulnerable position. 

@ACG would they both be able to live in the property with a JBSP mortgage? When we did this for our offspring I thought we had to sign something that we weren’t going to live in the property, though that maybe something from the solicitor (it requires the second borrower to take independent legal advice) rather than the lender.

Good question. 
I dont know the answer, but I would imagine they can if they sign an over 17 waiver. 

I think the concern would be that they're acquiring an interest in the property by contributing to the mortgage payments.

They could well be. 
But the over 17 waiver allows the lender to take the property and sell it if the mortgage is not paid or the terms are broken. 

Ultimately they may acquire an interest in the property, but the first part of any proceeds go to the lender. The rest gets paid to the owner, if the "guarantor" acquires an interest thats for them and the owner to argue over. The lender has got their money back. 

silvercar

user1977 said:

ACG said:

silvercar said:

ACG said:

You could potentially look at joint borrower, sole proprieter - thats where you are both on the mortgage but only your partner on the deeds. 

However that means you’re liable for the mortgage and do not own the property. It puts you in a vulnerable position. 

@ACG would they both be able to live in the property with a JBSP mortgage? When we did this for our offspring I thought we had to sign something that we weren’t going to live in the property, though that maybe something from the solicitor (it requires the second borrower to take independent legal advice) rather than the lender.

Good question. 
I dont know the answer, but I would imagine they can if they sign an over 17 waiver. 

I think the concern would be that they're acquiring an interest in the property by contributing to the mortgage payments.

Generally the legal advice you are required to take when you apply for one of these mortgages is that you understand that by not being on the deeds, but responsible for the mortgage, you won't be acquiring any legal rights to the property.

user1977

silvercar said:

user1977 said:

ACG said:

silvercar said:

ACG said:

You could potentially look at joint borrower, sole proprieter - thats where you are both on the mortgage but only your partner on the deeds. 

However that means you’re liable for the mortgage and do not own the property. It puts you in a vulnerable position. 

@ACG would they both be able to live in the property with a JBSP mortgage? When we did this for our offspring I thought we had to sign something that we weren’t going to live in the property, though that maybe something from the solicitor (it requires the second borrower to take independent legal advice) rather than the lender.

Good question. 
I dont know the answer, but I would imagine they can if they sign an over 17 waiver. 

I think the concern would be that they're acquiring an interest in the property by contributing to the mortgage payments.

Generally the legal advice you are required to take when you apply for one of these mortgages is that you understand that by not being on the deeds, but responsible for the mortgage, you won't be acquiring any legal rights to the property.

Yes, and ultimately the lender may be in the clear, but I can understand them being averse to the risk of either a resident digging their heels in when repossession is attempted, or complaining that they were misled into signing up to something apparently against their interests (i.e. being jointly and severally liable to repay the loan for somebody else's property). Not worth the hassle and they prefer to concentrate on simpler cases.

silvercar

user1977 said:

silvercar said:

user1977 said:

ACG said:

silvercar said:

ACG said:

You could potentially look at joint borrower, sole proprieter - thats where you are both on the mortgage but only your partner on the deeds. 

However that means you’re liable for the mortgage and do not own the property. It puts you in a vulnerable position. 

@ACG would they both be able to live in the property with a JBSP mortgage? When we did this for our offspring I thought we had to sign something that we weren’t going to live in the property, though that maybe something from the solicitor (it requires the second borrower to take independent legal advice) rather than the lender.

Good question. 
I dont know the answer, but I would imagine they can if they sign an over 17 waiver. 

I think the concern would be that they're acquiring an interest in the property by contributing to the mortgage payments.

Generally the legal advice you are required to take when you apply for one of these mortgages is that you understand that by not being on the deeds, but responsible for the mortgage, you won't be acquiring any legal rights to the property.

Yes, and ultimately the lender may be in the clear, but I can understand them being averse to the risk of either a resident digging their heels in when repossession is attempted, or complaining that they were misled into signing up to something apparently against their interests (i.e. being jointly and severally liable to repay the loan for somebody else's property). Not worth the hassle and they prefer to concentrate on simpler cases.

That could be why some lenders require that the joint borrower doesn’t reside in the property.

i doubt someone required to take independent legal advice could complain they were misled, that’s why there is the requirement (rather than advice) to take advice.