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

Well you need to be clear with her that if she is not on the deeds then she is not buying a house. She is renting speace from her boyfriend.

As, cross post. Then yes, she should be on the deeds, or they find another way to work this. Paying half the mortgage but having on claim on the house is not OK.

Ok well if they've decided to buy this house together then that's a very different story and yes, they absolutely need to get a legal agreement written up and her interests need to be protected.

Honestly at this young age and with the facts you’ve now updated I would advise my DC to have a lodger agreement drawn up for the GF and make sure she has her own room. He can get her evicted anytime he wants otherwise.

I understand protecting capital but your DD is powerless with no rights if she agrees to this arrangement.

She shouldn't move in at all, she should live separately to the bf & see how long the relationship lasts. If he objects to this suggestion then it's obvious that he just wants her to fund his forever home. She won't benefit at all and it's not in her interest to move in with a bf so young.

We should be teaching our kids, especially our dd's, independence without being codependent on partners. Cohabitation without the legal protection of marriage can turn out to be another gilded cage to trap vulnerable people.

If she’s paying half the mortgage she should be on the deeds. Otherwise she should save what she would have paid towards the mortgage for a deposit on her own place. And pay half bills obviously.
Are they ‘buying it together’ or is he buying a house so she has no say/involvement he covers decorating/furnishings etc and she’s just sharing a bed.
They havent been together long and she is young do you want her committing to a mortgage?
Right now it’s sensible to not commit to each other but down the line if they have children she would be very vulnerable.

OP, I had a "boyfriend" when 22, my parents bought me an apartment (another country).
I would never think once to bestow any share on that flat to him.
Mind you, he lived there for about a fortnight, then I decided I wanted my own space 😂
That was 25 years ago.

I assumed the same, that bills included her share of the mortgage and so yes she should be on the deeds (with his lump sum ring fenced).
@User197634 can you clarify if she will be contributing to the mortgage or not.
If not, surely she is just living rent free (she would pays bills wherever) and so could save that money every month instead of being on the deeds.

Assuming that not only is she paying half the mortgage but is also in the application then she should absolutely be on the deeds. The deposit just needs to be ring fenced

To clarify, my DD WILL be paying half the mortgage

So, can you clarify-us the mortgage in both their names? Is the mortgage company aware she will be paying half of the monthly mortgage payments? Is the amount they have borrowed based on both their salaries?

She absolutely should not be paying half the mortgage!!

That's what you should be advising against IMO.

If he can't afford it on his own he shouldn't really have bought a house.

is your DD on the mortgage?

Absolutely this.

That was beautifully written.

I can live with your approbation.

But look at the positives - you've learnt something this morning 😃.

@User197634 would strongly suggest that

She should really look at a declaration of trust, especially if, financially, everything will be 50:50 going forward.

Yes, sorry, I don’t necessarily mean market value rent.

I just mean an amount they agree together that is fair that covers her half of bills and yes, potentially some money towards the house because she would be paying rent elsewhere ?

There must be some middle ground between him effectively saying “do you want to come and live with me in my house” and jointly buying a house together via a mortgage you’ve taken out together? Either of these options are fine to of course.

Doesn’t a lodger pay “rent” beyond just bills?

She’s only 20 this is a huge contract between two people so young. I would tell her that she needs to talk to her boyfriend and discuss the option of after X amount of years if they’re still together, she is then put on the deeds and something is written up to protect her boyfriends deposit.

Agree that unless she’s paying the mortgage, she shouldn’t be on the deeds.

Another consideration is if they split in a year, and she later wants to buy, would she have lost her first time buyer status? I know there were advantages to this a few years ago unless its changed.

No, her name does not go on the deeds. Don't be silly.

And paying a share of the bills is perfectly right. However she should not be paying toward the mortgage.

Lovely. I make a mistake with the one letter and the mean girls are out.

Along with most others, I think it all depends if she's contributing to the mortgage. If she is, then really she should be on both the mortgage and the deeds.

The solicitor can draw up a deed (tenants in common?), which states that when they sell, the BF is due the first X amount from any sale, and the rest of the profits are split equally. This also gives a figure for one to buy the other out in the event of a split.

I did this with a boyfriend at a similar age as I put down a large deposit. When we separated I bought him out and removed him from the mortgage - it worked very well. And it meant he got something out of an asset in what was a very fast rising market.

I probably could have done it in the way some people are suggesting, kept it all in my name and fucked him over despite his contribution to the household. But it didn't seem very fair.

If only the laughing emoji was still here.

It's your first sentence really. Is she buying the house with him or not? Are they splitting the bills, or is he paying the mortgage and she all the bills? Wil she be living rent/mortgage free or contributing to that?

They can buy together and ring fence his deposit, but she can't insist on that. It is young to do so and would get messy if they split. There is something to be said for him buying it and she essentially being a lodger. But I would be trying to make it official and explicit with a contract rather than them essentially pretending that it's her house too when it's not.

There needs to be some sort of equitable arrangement I think. If being on the deeds is not a goer then how else do they arrange it so she is not financially missing out? Eg she has lower rent and uses the difference to save for her own deposit. She shouldn't be spending all her money on rent or paying all their bills while he gets all the equity return because it's him paying the mortgage.

even though she'll be sharing the bills.

How much is she putting towards the deposit?
How much is she paying towards the monthly mortgage?

If the answer is 'nothing' or virtually nothing, then of course her name shouldn't be anywhere near the mortgage or deeds. It sounds like he is buying a house that he'll let her live in and you are seeing pound signs on her behalf!