To buy or Not to buy - that is the question!

Good Evening all! My first time at uk.finance and I really could do with some advice.

Here is the situation. A very dear friend has been left by her husband. He wants £30,000 as a final settlement. They have a morgage of £31,000. My friend desperately wants to stay put. She does not want to sell. She does not have much of an income. She has asked me to purchase the house and rent it back to her. However, I can only raise 70% of the market value. She is happy with this as it would pay off her mortgage and her husband. However, there wouldn't be much left for her. Her finances are such that she could claim help with her rent. However, the questions are, Because she jointly owned the house, would she be disqualified from Housing Benefit if she went from owner to tenant? Because she has sold for less than the market value would they view this as effectively making herself poorer by not selling it on the open market? I want to help but I would not purchase this property if she can't rent it back form me.

Also, I would require a BTL mortgage for 85% of the loan. How would a mortgage company view a purchase of a property for 70% of its market value? And would they have a problem with a tenant who was an exowner?

Anybody who can through some light on the subject please?

Reply to
Miss Moneypenny
Loading thread data ...

If she is dumb enough to sell her house for 70% of it's value then I'm sure she has lots of "very dear" friends.

If you were a real friend you would suggest a more eqiutiable arrangement to her.

I guess there really is one born every minute..

Adrian Smith

Reply to
Adrian Smith

She should ask him to accept staged payments.

If she wants to stay in the house it would seem reasonable that she makes the effort to get a reasonable income.

Reply to
Peter Saxton

I'll offer 80% of the value, cash, for starters. Tran

Reply to
Tranny

Reply to
Miss Moneypenny

Reply to
Miss Moneypenny

Reply to
Miss Moneypenny

Reply to
Miss Moneypenny

A reasonable income is enough to pay for what she wishes to spend.

People who take time out to study and reduce their present income have to accept that they don't have the spending power of people who are performing paid work for longer.

I'm not sure why you think you should take on this role. Is she incapable of doing this?

What are they?

This seems a wild statement. I see from your reply to Adrian that you turn to insults when you don't get the approval you crave:

"Obviously Adrian Smith you are not quite as switched on as you would like to think you are!"

"Yep, there really is one born every minute - you are proof of that!"

"Neither of us are that dumb but obviously you are!"

You have access to your posts. Can't you answer that question yourself?

Reply to
Peter Saxton

Reply to
Miss Moneypenny

"Miss Moneypenny" wrote

also:

"Miss Moneypenny" wrote (in a different reply)

and:

"Miss Moneypenny" wrote

OK, keeping just to the financial side - you won't forget to disclose properly the value of the "other benefits" when you complete the Stamp Duty Land Tax form, will you?!

Reply to
Tim

Don't be so crude. You can't put a monetary value on love and friendship (which seems to be what's behind this), and even if you could, it wouldn't be subject to sdlt or any other tax.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

If that is really what the "extra benefit" is, then can you suggest why it would be witheld if the house sale didn't go through?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Yes, but "assets" given in exchange for (part of) land/property, *are* subject to SDLT!

Reply to
Tim

Where was it said that that would be the case?

Is undying gratitude an asset, in the technical sense?

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

For instance: > > "Miss Moneypenny" wrote > >> ... gain in some other way from this sale, ...

For her to be "gaining" the benefit from the sale, requires her *not* to receive said benefit if the sale doesn't occur...

[Otherwise it's not a gain from the sale, it's something that she'd be getting anyway!]

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Dunno! - but I expect not.

Reply to
Tim

But it need not be a matter of the benefit being *given* from one party to the other, it could simply *arise* as a side effect, and moreover be mutual.

So the other person would *also* be gaining or not gaining said benefit, whatever it might be. Proximity, perhaps, with the ensuing ability to enjoy each other's company more easily, i.e. with less travel overhead, and therefore also probably more frequently.

From that point of view there would be no question of it being "withheld" if the sale did not proceed, it would simply be a case of the side effect not happening. Since the benefit, if it went ahead, would be mutual, so would the lack of it be if it didn't, and hence it would be tax neutral because there would be no *transfer* of value involved. Either both parties gain, equally, or they don't.

Reply to
Ronald Raygun

In message , Miss Moneypenny writes

So you are buying it at 70% of value and need to borrow 85% of the 70% being 59.5% of the value, is that right?

You could certainly do it but I suggest that the vendor sells it to you at 100% value but lends you the remaining 30% secured by a second charge over the property. there is every possibility that she will lose benefits as a result of this transaction.

Reply to
John Boyle

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.