AIBU to advise my daughter that she'd be daft to not put her name on house deeds?

Sure but that’s just part of being in a relationship, isn’t it? The person with the deposit isn’t giving anything up to have that mutual benefit (lower interest rates etc), it’s just a fortunate by-product of them having come into money. If the deposit is ring fenced properly (I.e by way of % ownership not fixed amount) then the deposit holder also benefits from having two incomes for the mortgage and the possibility of buying a bigger house than they could afford alone.

So based on your latest update OP, they haven’t actually applied for a mortgage yet? I think that’s why you’re getting such mixed responses, as this wasn’t clear.

If this is the case, then it’s actually quite a simple thing to do, and it’s what I did with my then partner, now husband. We wanted to purchase a house together, but I had significant savings for a deposit which he didn’t have.

We applied for a joint mortgage, which we were granted. The house was always going to be in both names, with mortgage and bills paid 50/50 between us. I then got a declaration of trust to protect my deposit money. It cost £50 to do, and meant that in the event of a split or a house sale, all my deposit money would come back to me, and then the rest of the house sale would be split 50/50 between us. He was more than happy to agree to this, and it was really straightforward to arrange.

There’s absolutely no need for your DD to be seen as a lodger or a tenant, not if they’re getting a joint mortgage and paying equally into the mortgage and bills. The BF just needs to get a declaration of trust to protect his deposit money.

You’re absolutely right, OP. If she’s paying half the mortgage, she absolutely should be on the deeds. Also as PPs have said, it may be a requirement for the mortgage in any case because the house is the mortgage company’s security.

If she’s not on the deeds, she’s just paying for her boyfriend to have a house. His contribution can be ring-fenced so that he gets his £60k back if they split and have to sell the house.

If she doesn’t understand this, then she is not ready to take on this responsibility. If the boyfriend is resisting having her on the deeds, then it is unsafe for her to take this step with him.

She is going to be paying the mortgage, so absolutely, she should be on the deeds.
Tenancy in common is the way, they can specify how much each of them is paying and ringfence his deposit.
Otherwise she should only pay for half the bills, or perhaps they should draw up a lodger agreement.

The person without the deposit is benefitting massively from the person with, if they share the mortgage. Lower mortgage rate, bigger house than they could afford on their own. I'm not sure this is reflected in just ringfencing the deposit.
obviously if it turns into a long term relationship this won't matter anymore.

1. he should protect his money in writing - legal contract
2. if her salary is contributing to the ability to get the mortgage she should be on the deeds
3. they need to agree on a split upfront given the 2 factors above and have it contractually agreed
4. is she paying rent or a mortgage eg) if 2 doesn't apply I would argue she is paying him rent.
5. if they both go on deeds they should also have a will so his money is protected in that way too.

She’s not buying a house, he is. I would be absolutely furious if my 20 year old son told me he was adding his girlfriend of 2 years to the deeds! There is no way I would advise him to do that. Why don’t you give her some money to put towards the deposit? I get you don’t want her paying towards the mortgage payments but it would be no different if she was renting.

I would feel differently if they were older and planning to spend their lives together, or if they have children, but at 20? No way.

Can you actually be on a mortgage without being on the deeds? I thought the house protected the mortgage company in the event of default. Where’s the protection if she is not on the deeds?
I’m sure someone more knowledgeable will be along.

Ok so it's theoretical at this stage.

In that case they need to both understand that they should go through the proper channels to get everything set up to protect each side's interests.

If they decide to have a baby make sure they get married first!**

**I know you can't actually ensure they do that...but definitely advise your DD.

Will a mortgage company even allow someone on the mortgage if they aren't on the deeds? They are an obvious risk for non payment, as why should they care if the house is repossessed?

The only situation where I have seen this allowed by the mortgage company, it was parents acting as guarantor for their children which is obviously different.

If the relationship goes wrong a mortgage is potentially more difficult to extract yourself from than a divorce.

your daughter is still quite young. Maybe she pays some rent to live there and share of the bills and saves her own money. They can always look at changing the ownership at a later date when the relationship is settled.

OP this is daft. If she is planning to be on the mortgage application then it will almost certainly be a condition of the mortgage that she is also named as a legal owner of the property. At this point, an hour’s consultation with a solicitor and an hour’s consultation with a mortgage broker will be worth their weight in gold and may well save a huge amount of time and stress in the future. All this needs to be done BEFORE they find a house, not as an afterthought when they are excited and emotionally invested in a property and will just do anything to make it work.

Paying rent is not the same. She’s a lodger! He might spend rent on the mortgage but might not. If she’s definitely on the mortgage loan, that’s different. As a I said earlier, they need a cohabiting agreement. Getting married would confer different rights.

Someone above said she's a lodger. She's not. A lodger would have a tenancy agreement. She's really an "excluded occupier", which is basically a guest. She can be asked to leave without notice. A lodger is supposed to be given notice based on how often the rent is paid - weekly, monthly.

Oops, missed the update.

She shouldn't be on the mortgage if she's not on the deeds though. Why would you accept a financial liability like a mortgage for a property you don't own? If the purchase is dependent on them getting a joint mortgage then he either needs to buy a cheaper property and finance it all himself or she should be on the deeds and he should ringfence his deposit.

I agree with you Op. He can ring fence his £60k. Then, if the worst happens and they split 10 years from now, your DD will at least benefit from 10 years uplift in value etc.

So many people here not understanding that if a property is mortgaged, its up to the mortgage company what other adult householders go on the deeds. You cant just 'put yourself on the deeds'.

She really needs to be given some financial home truths to protect herself. If she is not on the deeds, she is NOT buying a home - she is enabling her boyfriend to accumulate an asset alone at her expense.
If she is on the mortgage but not the deeds - she is insane. WHY?
If he / his parents won’t countenance her being on the deeds even when ring fencing his deposit then for her own protection she should not move in unless it is on a lodger type basis - significantly less than bills + half mortgage. HE buys everything for the home, does all home works etc and she is sleeping there temporarily. She can then hopefully continue to save to build up her own assets. Personally at 20 this I think is the most sensible way forward however I strongly suspect BF is relying on her to fund his mortgage.

They should have it in both their names and do a deed of trust for the deposit money so he gets that back. If he's not willing to do that then that's a red flag.

Why? No need to laugh. It's an important thing to get right when you're communicating in writing. Brought is the past tense of bring and has nothing to do with purchasing.

If she's paying towards the mortgage, her name should be on the deeds, although the boyfriend can ring fence his deposit legally by buying as tenants in common with proportional shares in the property reflecting their input.

If she's not on the deeds she should pay her share of the bills excluding the mortgage and should put no money into things like house renovation or decorating. This will mean she pays less than him, but that's correct as he is the one with an increasing asset, not her.

She shouldn't pay him "rent" in my opinion. If he wants that, he should get a lodger.

She should not have a child without either getting married first, or discussing alternative financial arrangements. She should also keep reviewing this arrangement if they are still together in 5 years or so. She doesn't want to drift into a situation where she has nothing if they split when they have been together a long time. She should at that stage have plans to either marry him, buy a house of her own, or they should move to a larger house that she does have financial and legal input into.

In what sense is she buying it with him? If she doesn't have a deposit and she's not on the mortgage then she can't afford to buy a property and the fact that he can is none of her business. Presumably if he wasn't in a position to buy a house, they'd be renting.

Imagine the roles were reversed and your daughter had a substantial deposit to buy a property. Would you advise her to just give half of it to a boyfriend of two years? No, of course not.

What she should do is ensure a fair split of contributions towards the household bills (i e. she shouldn't be paying 50% if he earns twice as much as she does), save money in her own name each month, and be extremely careful not to get pregnant or do anything to reduce her earning capacity in any way unless they get married first. Which they also should not rush into at their age.

The point is not to put yourself at financial risk for the sake of a partner who doesn't truly share finances with you. If she had a baby with him and was living in his house whilst on statutory maternity pay or not working, doing all the childcare and housework whilst not being able to better her own financial position, and they weren't married and she wasn't on the deeds, you would have a point. But they're 20, it's a relatively short relationship, his house purchase is not really anything to do with her, and she isn't putting herself at risk or losing anything by living in it.

So she’s paying him rent? I don’t get why that should mean she has to be in the deeds, she’d been paying rent somewhere anyway.