Divorced but partner with child wont sell house

WIAWSNB

itsatoughone123 said:

Thanks everyone. My car is a vintage car. It's not got a huge value but I've had it since I was a teenager and long before we met. 
Today I refused to pay the full amount I usually do each month and halved it (still way more than what's expected of me) and was met with abuse about not paying the mortgage. I keep explaining that I can't maintain the amount I've been paying. 
I saw a mediator a few weeks ago and she will be speaking to my ex wife shortly too. She wasn't happy about it but it's the only fair way. 
I don't think I'm being unreasonable to not pay nearly 1k a month just to keep her in a house I co own and don't live in. I still always see my daughter when I can and have her over at weekends and the summer holidays. 

I dunno, my auntie says I'm too soft and need to stop being emotionally manipulated. Maybe she's right. 

Ok, this is a really important detail - what car is it?

*cough*

Ok, ok, I'm not going to suggest you do this, and the best initial move is mediation. Folk can become surprisingly reasonable when they have an aware and impartial witness listening to them. But, if you were to reduce your mortgage repayments, with the legitimate excuse that you cannot simply sustain the current rate as it's so unbalanced, then the only two outcomes I can see are that your ex needs to up her contribution (unlikely), or else the mortgage co threatens - and ultimately carries out - a repossession. Current dilemma 'sorted'.

I'm not suggesting you do this, but you could certainly put it forward as the most likely outcome at mediation if an agreement cannot be reached. That's your starting point - your current repayment rate cannot continue. You are scrabbling around for the money each month. You cannot provide for your daughter in the way you wish. It is unsustainable. You simply will not do it. If that means the house is repossessed, so be it. You'll both get your share of whatever is left over once the mortgage lender has their loan recouped. It'll likely be significantly less than what you'd get through proper marketing, but at least it's a certain outcome, with zero hassle, and she'll be equally culpable for its cause. 

If she doesn't change her mind with this threat, then you'll have a true grasp of her spiteful calibre, I'm afraid. 

Section62

WIAWSNB said:

itsatoughone123 said:

Thanks everyone. My car is a vintage car. It's not got a huge value but I've had it since I was a teenager and long before we met. 
Today I refused to pay the full amount I usually do each month and halved it (still way more than what's expected of me) and was met with abuse about not paying the mortgage. I keep explaining that I can't maintain the amount I've been paying. 
I saw a mediator a few weeks ago and she will be speaking to my ex wife shortly too. She wasn't happy about it but it's the only fair way. 
I don't think I'm being unreasonable to not pay nearly 1k a month just to keep her in a house I co own and don't live in. I still always see my daughter when I can and have her over at weekends and the summer holidays. 

I dunno, my auntie says I'm too soft and need to stop being emotionally manipulated. Maybe she's right. 

Ok, this is a really important detail - what car is it?

*cough*

Ok, ok, I'm not going to suggest you do this, and the best initial move is mediation. Folk can become surprisingly reasonable when they have an aware and impartial witness listening to them. But, if you were to reduce your mortgage repayments, with the legitimate excuse that you cannot simply sustain the current rate as it's so unbalanced, then the only two outcomes I can see are that your ex needs to up her contribution (unlikely), or else the mortgage co threatens - and ultimately carries out - a repossession. Current dilemma 'sorted'.

I'm not suggesting you do this, but you could certainly put it forward as the most likely outcome at mediation if an agreement cannot be reached. That's your starting point - your current repayment rate cannot continue. You are scrabbling around for the money each month. You cannot provide for your daughter in the way you wish. It is unsustainable. You simply will not do it. If that means the house is repossessed, so be it. You'll both get your share of whatever is left over once the mortgage lender has their loan recouped. It'll likely be significantly less than what you'd get through proper marketing, but at least it's a certain outcome, with zero hassle, and she'll be equally culpable for its cause. 

If she doesn't change her mind with this threat, then you'll have a true grasp of her spiteful calibre, I'm afraid. 

There's at least one more possible outcome - that the ex goes to court to get a financial remedy order to avoid the family home falling into repossession with her and the child becoming homeless.  Unilaterally halving the monthly payment potentially hands the ex the justification that she (and the child), cannot rely on informal agreements for regular payments, and whilst the court won't order ongoing monthly payments (at least not for more than one year) they could order something which is equally to the OP's disadvantage.

I'm really hoping the answer to my previous post is that there was a lengthy documented discussion between the OP and the ex, prior to this month's halved payment.

If you offer advice here you need to understand that the house being repossesed doesn't 'sort' anything.  The court's first priority is the child, and meeting the child's needs.  Being homeless is not in the interests of the child.  Doing something which puts the home at risk will not play well with the court.

itsatoughone123

Thanks everyone. I have told her over and over that I cannot sustain the payments. Last month I said I need to reduce it. Weirdly she sent me over half what I normally pay as it was half of what was in our savings then says I've "gained" extra money by not paying her the usual amount. Bringing up a holiday i took a year ago and that the credit card bills are from that which isn't true. 
I will likely give her some money again tomorrow to help but I feel I'm being guilt tripped. 

HampshireH

itsatoughone123 said:

Thanks everyone. I have told her over and over that I cannot sustain the payments. Last month I said I need to reduce it. Weirdly she sent me over half what I normally pay as it was half of what was in our savings then says I've "gained" extra money by not paying her the usual amount. Bringing up a holiday i took a year ago and that the credit card bills are from that which isn't true. 
I will likely give her some money again tomorrow to help but I feel I'm being guilt tripped. 

If you are reducing your payments because of affordability you can't then top her up.

It gives mixed messages and basically makes it look like she can demand whatever she wants and you will oblige.

You need to make a decision and stick to it to be seen as serious in your approach

WIAWSNB

Section62 said:

There's at least one more possible outcome - that the ex goes to court to get a financial remedy order to avoid the family home falling into repossession with her and the child becoming homeless.  Unilaterally halving the monthly payment potentially hands the ex the justification that she (and the child), cannot rely on informal agreements for regular payments, and whilst the court won't order ongoing monthly payments (at least not for more than one year) they could order something which is equally to the OP's disadvantage.

I'm really hoping the answer to my previous post is that there was a lengthy documented discussion between the OP and the ex, prior to this month's halved payment.

If you offer advice here you need to understand that the house being repossesed doesn't 'sort' anything.  The court's first priority is the child, and meeting the child's needs.  Being homeless is not in the interests of the child.  Doing something which puts the home at risk will not play well with the court.

Absolutely fair enough. But I wasn't offering 'advice' - it was more a caveated ponderance. And you have provided the counter as to why it likely wouldn't be a good idea.

As far as I know, no-one has been gaoled for not being able to keep up mortgage repayments, and the OP is telling us he's struggling due to the arbitrary imbalance that his ex has imposed on him.

So it currently looks as tho' they are heading for the courts, with all the hell that implies, so I hope that mediation works. 

But, if it doesn't, what should the OP do? 

sheramber

What do you do?

You either continue to be Mr Nice Guy and keep complaining or you consult a  divorce lawyer and get things sorted out legally once and for all. 

Your ex wife is not prepared to  come to an amicable agreement so  you need to decide which path  you  take. 

WIAWSNB

Imo, courts = last option. Hell. 

Section62

WIAWSNB said:

Section62 said:

There's at least one more possible outcome - that the ex goes to court to get a financial remedy order to avoid the family home falling into repossession with her and the child becoming homeless.  Unilaterally halving the monthly payment potentially hands the ex the justification that she (and the child), cannot rely on informal agreements for regular payments, and whilst the court won't order ongoing monthly payments (at least not for more than one year) they could order something which is equally to the OP's disadvantage.

I'm really hoping the answer to my previous post is that there was a lengthy documented discussion between the OP and the ex, prior to this month's halved payment.

If you offer advice here you need to understand that the house being repossesed doesn't 'sort' anything.  The court's first priority is the child, and meeting the child's needs.  Being homeless is not in the interests of the child.  Doing something which puts the home at risk will not play well with the court.

Absolutely fair enough. But I wasn't offering 'advice' - it was more a caveated ponderance. And you have provided the counter as to why it likely wouldn't be a good idea.

As far as I know, no-one has been gaoled for not being able to keep up mortgage repayments, and the OP is telling us he's struggling due to the arbitrary imbalance that his ex has imposed on him.

So it currently looks as tho' they are heading for the courts, with all the hell that implies, so I hope that mediation works.

It depends how you frame that...   For clarity, I'm not saying the OP has done anything illegal or is likely to be jailed.

I've Mckenzie friended a couple of people through divorce proceedings, and my usual comment about litigation being unpredictable takes on a whole new level when it comes to family law.  However, there is a playbook of tactics and counter-tactics which family law solicitors know and use.  For example if one partner is reluctant to come to an agreement, a tactic the other partner might use is to create an artificial 'crisis' which brings things to a head.  This, more or less, is what a lot of the suggestions in this thread amount to, although the OP's situation sounds like a genuine crisis is looming.  Whether it is or isn't will emerge in the Form E disclosures - there's no hiding place in this - assets and expenditures can be pored over in detail.

The risk with some of the tactics though is there is a fine line between something you have to do, and something which amounts to 'financial abuse'.  Financial abuse is a crime which could lead to someone being jailed.

Again. I'm not saying the OP is doing this.

But if the objective is to 'force' the sale of the family home, then claiming to be unable to pay the mortgage and unilaterally stopping payments could take someone so close to the line that it comes back to bite them.  Unlikely they will be charged or jailed, but it could be the thing that tips the judge one way or another when they decide what a 'fair' outcome is for a financial remedy.

So as I said in this post -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81533885/#Comment_81533885
"If the inability to pay the mortgage is genuine, then this needs to be apparent in the OP's Form E."

The OP said they had £10k in savings... people who cannot afford to pay their mortgage typically have nothing in savings. Do you see what I'm saying, and how that might look to a judge?

WIAWSNB said:

But, if it doesn't, what should the OP do?

I've said already - get a good family law/divorce solicitor.  And preferably stop listening to family members and friendly people on the internet offering advice which could worsen an already difficult position (I include myself in that).

At this stage, if a 'threat' to stop making payments needs to be made for affordability reasons then it is better for that to be done via a solicitor (in a professional capacity), rather than personally via whatsapp or face-to-face.  It needs to be documented and explained, and ideally giving the ex an opportunity to put forward other suggestions.  I'd interpret the "weird" sending the OP over half what he normally pays a tactic by the ex to show she's willing to help out 'in a difficult month'.  If so, smart move.  But the OP needs to be smarter.

I'm not saying I'm right - the opposite in fact, that outcomes are very difficult to predict.  But this is a situation where the DIY approach can be a really bad idea.

RAS

I'm very concerned thar you saw a mediator several weeks ago.

The wiser thing would have been to ask your ex to join you in mediation. Agree a practitioner and start with a joint meeting.

I'd not be surprised if your ex refused to engage with the mediator you've chosen and already seen. And whilst refusing mediation generally isn't a good idea, a mediator should demonstrate impartiality. 

And other unilateral actions may not go on your favour.

As for the threats to go after your pension etc. The settlement will consider all assets of the marriage, so the car might be valuable enough but not if it's your only transport and comparable in price with a modern car. Pensions, savings, debts are considered along side equity. 

ian1246

Ultimately you have your own housing needs to meet, whilst your ex is required to maximise her own earning potential to try and meet her own needs - whether you then have to provide spousal maintenance (which paying the mortgage for the property she lives in, is a form of) will be a decision ultimately for a judge.

If you are going into debt and unable to meet your own housing needs, whilst your ex contributes nothing to meeting her own housing needs, then I'd suggest provided you've kept appropriate documentation showing your financial affairs, its unlikely a family court will deem covering only half the mortgage as unreasonable (particularly since you have your *own* housing costs. You'll essentially be paying for 1 & 1/2 houses whilst your ex pays for 1/2) for the interim.

The Child Maintenance Calculator sets out how much you are required to pay her for the costs of the child.

Everything else is up for debate via the family courts. You absolutely need to see a family lawyer before you do anything else - you need to be pushing for a clean break order.

Your mortgage payments to date have essentially been a form of informal spousal maintenance (supporting the ex). Given the 18+months which have passed since the separation, in your shoes I'd be arguing that's a sufficient period of reasonable adjustment for the ex to start financially supporting herself, particularly given the age of the child who is due to start School imminently - ex needs to be maximising her earning capacity to meet her own needs.

Section62 said:

I've Mckenzie friended a couple of people through divorce proceedings, and my usual comment about litigation being unpredictable takes on a whole new level when it comes to family law.  However, there is a playbook of tactics and counter-tactics which family law solicitors know and use.  For example if one partner is reluctant to come to an agreement, a tactic the other partner might use is to create an artificial 'crisis' which brings things to a head.  This, more or less, is what a lot of the suggestions in this thread amount to, although the OP's situation sounds like a genuine crisis is looming.  Whether it is or isn't will emerge in the Form E disclosures - there's no hiding place in this - assets and expenditures can be pored over in detail.

The risk with some of the tactics though is there is a fine line between something you have to do, and something which amounts to 'financial abuse'.  Financial abuse is a crime which could lead to someone being jailed.

Again. I'm not saying the OP is doing this.

But if the objective is to 'force' the sale of the family home, then claiming to be unable to pay the mortgage and unilaterally stopping payments could take someone so close to the line that it comes back to bite them.  Unlikely they will be charged or jailed, but it could be the thing that tips the judge one way or another when they decide what a 'fair' outcome is for a financial remedy.

So as I said in this post -

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81533885/#Comment_81533885
"If the inability to pay the mortgage is genuine, then this needs to be apparent in the OP's Form E."

On the flip-side, from a controlling and coercive point of view, an ex-partner without a valid reason refusing to contribute to a mortgage for an extended period of time, forcing the Non-Resident ex-partner to have a choice of either going into default or covering all of the mortgage, is in itself also potentially financial abuse. Particularly if that person is declining to engage in any attempt to reach an agreement or solution (whether informal agreement or court-outcome), causing the non-resident ex-partner to divert their spending / capital or face default and going into debt.

But I would agree, he needs to seek legal advice and deal with any reduced mortgage payments in a professional manner, rather than behaving unilaterally.

But likewise, there is also a positive obligation on the ex-partner to also be engaging in the process - whether that be directly or with her own legal representative. If she just ignores the OP and declines to engage in the process, forcing the OP's financial situation to continue to deteriorate without a court-appointed outcome, then she will be skating incredibly close to committing controlling and coercive behaviour herself. 

Right now, as the financial situation stands, its the OP suffering an adverse impact on their financial situation, with their being forced to spend their capital covering 100% of the mortgage or face defaulting and going into debt. This is even more the case given the OP has indicated he is under substantial financial strain. Keep in mind that being unable to rent or purchase a property with his new partner, would absolutely amount to a serious effect on him - which is one of the points to prove which needs to be met (Serious effect on the victim) for controlling and coercive behaviour.

If a court has made the decision that the OP is to stay on the mortgage and the property is not to be sold, then fine - that would negate any possible financial abuse complaint by the OP. But absent of that, what the Ex is doing absolutely could amount to controlling and coercive behaviour in itself. 

At the very least, any court - whether Civil or Criminal (if ever it came to criminal proceedings with regards to controlling and coercive behaviour)- would expect the OP's ex-partner to contribute something to meeting her own housing costs. Right now, the OP's covering 100% of her housing costs.

Section62 said:

ian1246 said:

Section62 said:

ian1246 said:

Hoenir said:

elsien said:

The issue is normally the ability to obtain an adequate mortgage. Smaller properties are relatively still expensive. 

If there is £200,000 equity in the property, I would suggest this is not the case. The ex absolutely would be expected to show flexibility - whether that be a smaller mortgage on a 100% owned house or just buying a share of a property outright in a shared ownership.

The ex is a single parent caring for a 4 year old child.  Their ability to earn is limited by their caring responsibilities, even when the child goes to school she still either has to work part-time, or else pay for childcare.  On a part-time income the outgoings for herself and a child are likely to cause her affordability issues, even with a decent deposit.

The ex would only be expected to show flexibility if there is a viable alternative to her staying in the property with the child.

ian1246 said:

Ex is being very unreasonable - Op, before you force the issue start documenting & evidencing all your child contact for a period of time. That way if the ex weaponises your access to the children in retaliation, you'll be able to demonstrate the status quo at court & demonstrate the parental alienation.

That is for a judge to decide - what you, I, or anyone else on the forum thinks is irrelevant.  The judge will put the needs of the child first, and that primarily means having a decent and stable home to live in with at least one parent.  If there isn't the equity to provide two owned homes then the judge gets to decide what is the next best alternative.  That may be the ex gets to live in the house until the child is no longer a child.

There is a presumption in law of a clean break - the sole exception to depart from that is based on necessity. There is £200,000 of equity in the property - that is a significant sum of money to meet the needs of both parties- even if its as lopsided as the ex getting £150,000 of it whilst the OP gets £50,000 of it, due to differences in earning potential.

Yes, "necessity".  The presumption of a clean break is subordinate to the needs assessment, and the prioritising of the child.  The judge must also find a sustainable solution, if one exists.

ian1246 said:

Your also confusing "housing needs" with "owned home". A rented home is perfectly capable of meeting a child's housing needs also.

I'm not confusing anything.  The needs of the child are prioritised, including the provision of a home for them.  That could be a rented home, but the judge - looking at the family's situation as a whole - gets to decide whether forcing the sale of the family home is a) feasible and b) in the interests of the child(ren).  

An owned family home provides stability, and may be the only financially viable option.  Renting isn't as easy as it once was, people with good incomes and excellent prospects can struggle to find a home to rent.  Depending on the local situation a rental property may be more expensive than an owned property, and typically provides stability for only one year at a time. The OP will know better than us how easy it would be to rent a 2-bed property in the area, with a living standard equivalent to the current family home.  But renting = more uncertainty.  The judge will need to weigh up whether the OP's needs outweigh that uncertainty for the child.

ian1246 said:

Playing the childcare card in the modern age absolutely does not work - there is a requirement in law that all parties maximise their earning potential. The Op's solicitor will argue similarly. A judge disregarding the presumption of a clean break, expecting the OP to go into financial ruin and continue subsidising the ex for the next 14 years whilst being unable to meet HIS housing needs (lets not forget his requirement to have a property his children can stay at) when there are options (£200,000!!!) on the table for the ex, would be extraordinary in the modern age.

It isn't a "card".  It is a simple fact of life that judges must take into account when assessing needs.

One of the risks the OP faces (I've mentioned it upthread already) is hearing emotive language like "...expecting the OP to go into financial ruin and continue subsidising the ex for the next 14 years..." and allowing this to affect how he approaches the situation.

Rather than listening to such inflamatory comments, the OP would be better off reading the kind of official and neutral guidance (published in the "modern age") which explains the process and how decisions are taken -

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/guidance-on-financial-needs-on-divorce-june-2016-2.pdf

https://www.advicenow.org.uk/get-help/family-and-children/divorce-and-separation/sorting-out-your-finances-when-you-get-divorced

If the judge does allow the ex to stay in the family home then it won't be to "subsidis[e] the ex for the next 14 years" it will be to make sure the OP's child has at least one stable family home until they are no longer a child.  Understanding this - without all the emotive stuff - is the key to finding a solution.

ian1246 said:

Especially as the judge will be obligated to consider the impact of the OP remaining tied to the mortgage on his borrowing capacity to meet his own housing needs, or the impact that will have on the Op's ability to meet the financial checks required to rent a sufficiently sized property - his housing needs are just as important as the ex's in terms of minimal space (2 bedrooms), given the law expressly expects a child to have a relationship with BOTH parents (the child not having a bedroom at 1 parents house = a huge barrier to that. That is what the OP's solicitor will no doubt argue).

The OP's own housing needs are currently met.

With regard to the BiB, that simply isn't true.  Many families don't have enough bedrooms for each child to have their own, and provided the law is complied with in terms of overcrowding, the argument the OP needs to sell the family home to buy a 2-bed house is a weak one.

The law does expect the child to have a relationship with both parents, but if the housing situation doesn't allow overnight stays at one parent's home then that expectation could be met by (perhaps increased) contact during the day - or, for example, taking the child 'home' to sleep overnight.  You can argue that isn't ideal, but keeping a spare bedroom is just one of the wants/needs the judge gets to assess among all the other less-than-ideals.

The OP's solicitor will no doubt argue a lot of stuff.  But based on my experience, about half an hour before the final hearing they will have a huddle with the ex's solicitor to thrash out an agreement, and come back to tell the OP a lot of those arguments aren't ones the judge is likely to agree with... 'so you'll be better off accepting this deal'. (which is how a lot of litigation ends)

ian1246 said:

And for the record - my son is 4 years old and I'm his main parent (60/40 split) - i work full time hours in the emergency services (thankfully with flexible working). Working full time absolutely can be done if your willing to do so - but then again, i've never viewed my son as a negotiating chip for a financial settlement, or as a means to financially exploit or financially abuse my ex (i haven't claimed the child benefit and I don't ask for child maintainance, even though i could, since if I did it will likely be ruinous for the ex and inturn impact my son's time & experience with his mother).

More of the emotive stuff - "...negotiating chip...financially exploit or financially abuse my ex..." - it really doesn't help to find a resolution to put words like that into the mix.

ian1246 said:

Regardless, there is no getting away from the £200,000 equity in the property - £150,000 going to the ex would cover any realistic purchase of a shared-ownership property, meeting her / the child's housing needs. The remaining rent on the part she doesn't owned can be claimed back on universal credit.

£200k sounds a lot, but knock off (say) £40k for legal costs (£20k each) to get a financial order, then another (say) £10k for EA/conveyancing costs (more if the ex goes on to buy elsewhere) and that's down to £150k.  Which assumes the £200k equity is a realistic figure in the current market and in the desired (or ordered) selling timescale (buyers may be wary of buying from a divorcing couple, which could impact on price/timescales).

Then knock off any other debts the couple have together or individually.  The OP has mentioned his credit card debt, but the ex's true financial position may not be known until the Form E process is completed.

What will be left to split after that?

Ultimately, any outcome will be decided by a judge. However, £200,000 is a significant sum of money - the starting point is a 50/50 basis, departing from that only based on necessity.

And yes, that includes prioritising meeting the needs of the child over everything else - including the presumption on a clean-break principle.

But that brings us back to necessity - it will very much be on the Ex / her legal team to demonstrate why it is necessary for the two presumptions to be set aside, namely: 1.) 50/50 split of assets and 2.) No Clean Break, with a necessity for the Ex & Op to remain financially tied.

Meanwhile, the Op's position will be that there is sufficient equity in the property to meet both individual's housing needs - and in so doing, providing for the stable housing needs of the child - and thereby allowing a clean break to occur.

His position will also be that currently his housing is insufficient to meet his own needs - namely, having his child live with him, which is actively harming that relationship. Whilst its absolutely true a court could try to off-set this by increasing the Op's contact with the child during the day, that would be a last resort only if there is insufficient assets (obviously factoring in the ex's own requirements) to meet his housing needs.

The court's overwhelmingly preferred option would be that both parents have sufficient stable housing to accommodate the child, since ultimately that is in the best interests of the child (barring any parenting capacity / safeguarding issues etc...). Given what the OP has stated, a decision by the court to not force the sale of the family home and to keep the Op-Tied to the mortgage and his Ex, would essentially be the court opting for the last-resort of the Op being unable to meet the housing needs of his child and thus, his and the child's relationship getting harmed. The court will only go down that road if they are satisfied its absolutely necessary.  

That basically boils down to a maths question: What is the £££ Value of the combined assets (including the equity in the property), what is the borrowing or mortgage raising capacity of the OP & Ex and what does that mean for each of them when it comes to housing and meeting their needs.

The reality is unless the OP is living in London, even if we took your hypothetical only £150,000 remaining, then a 50/50 split would still be £75,000 each - which for many shared ownership properties, is sufficient to buy a share outright - before factoring in any mortgage raising capacity by the Ex. Any rent on the unowned share would be comparatively small and eligible for housing allowance - meaning there is a strong likelihood between working part-time and Universal credit, the ex would be able to meet the financial costs of her housing needs. As a reminder: Shared Ownership is a stable form of house-ownership, with none of the uncertainty which comes with renting.

More likely? Given the OP has a partner he is living with, that may well go against him (easier for him to meet his housing needs) at which point you could be talking about the Ex having the vast majority of the equity from the sale of the family home i.e. £100,000+. Its remotely possible she could even have the whole lot to meet her housing needs - if it then meant the OP would no longer be tied financially to the Ex and was able to meet his own housing needs with mortgage-raising capacity.

But my point remains: That there is presumption in law on a clean break - for that to be disregarded, the Ex will have to demonstrate that there is an ongoing necessity for her and the OP to remain financially tied - i.e. that a sale of the family home will yield insufficient capital (plus whatever borrowing capacity she herself has) to meet her (& the child's) housing needs. There will also be an expectation that she maximises her own earning capacity as well, which is where free-Childcare / School enters the equation given it is increases her opportunity to work and earn £££.

The burden is on the Ex to demonstrate why it is necessary to disregard the presumption of a clean break - and yes, that could include arguing she can't meet the housing needs of the child, IF she genuinely cannot. But ultimately, in order to do that, she's going to have to argue that £200,000 Equity is insufficient to meet those needs and that she needs the Op's continued financial support to have a stable house.

I would suggest, with the figures under discussion, and factoring in the OP's own insufficient-housing situation, that's probably a tall-ask. Its not impossible, but given that the presumption is exactly that - a legal presumption - the law starts out weighted in the Op's favour (I.e. A clean break = end to the joint mortgage). It will be for the ex to demonstrate why that presumption cannot be followed - and in so doing, she'll have to demonstrate that all viable methods have been explored. 

If I was in the OP's shoes I would absolutely be looking into what is available in the local area (i.e. within a reasonable distance of the school the child goes to) - whether that be rentals, full-ownership or shared ownership, since if he can demonstrate that there are reasonable housing options available for the ex, that may well help him argue against why it is necessary for him to remain tied to the ex and thereby allow the presumption of a clean break to be followed.