Dd, boyfriend and flat purchase

Edited because I only read half of the updates like an idiot. Another vote for a buy to let here though.

Best she does it this way. If they get engaged then married then I guess she would have claim if something went wrong in the future. However if they split up before being married it wont be a case of untangling finances and property.

So she needs to take the opportunity that this is to save as much as possible to get on the housing ladder, if that's what you want. However, I think you need to seriously consider whether a buy to let is what she wants. Successive changes to tax treatment have meant they aren't the investment they once were. She may be much better off simply saving in the stock market linked investment to gain growth over time. I would recommend joining the Rebel Finance group on Facebook and potentially (both of you, you and your daughter) doing the course (free), particularly as you've said elsewhere you don't know what a LISA is. From reading your subsequent posts, I think you own experiences are rightly making you cautious, however protecting your daughter's long-term financial interests can be done in more than one way. You have to helicopter up and see that your daughter living in a nicer flat, in a nicer area, than she could otherwise afford (even jointly with her boyfriend who you like) is a good thing and any consequences on the life path you thought she might take can be handled separately.

As always MN throws up a range of answers, where the differences depend on assumptions outside what has been covered in the posts

For me, the major difference is between on the one hand, two adults each making their way in the world and on the other , a family where at least one of the adults earning capacity is impacted by motherhood

Before having children, each should be roughly making their own way, responsible for their own costs. Once children become a reality, then it’s only fair that the costs including conceiving and carrying children, impact on career as well as the financials of living expenses should be divided fairly.

My earnest desire for your daughter, and for all women, is that they make an informed choice before moving from one state into the other. Ideally with the legal protections of marriage and certainly not just drifting into adding children into the mix while continuing to share financial costs as well as mothering and parenting.

This seems very lopsided.
I don’t think she should be paying him rent and lining his pockets, particularly when it’s his parents that have bought the flat.

The buy-to-let would be a very good option, because then they would both be on an even keel and she wouldn’t be the underdog.

You should share your experience with her if she resists advice to have a safety net saving plan.

If she is bettet off because of the arrangement she can save the difference in a LISA. Hopefully, if things progress she will have a long and happy marriage but if her name is not on the deeds, and particularly if she is asked to sign an agreement voiding any claim on his property should they divorce, she should ensure she can be financially independent. A LISA is a sensible step at this point.

I have a relative who is in the same position although they don't pay rent. They are saving the rent they would have paid as a deposit and will get a BTL, maybe you daughter could do that when she stops paying rent.

So once they get married it will be hers as well? If the family that bought it for him want that, then what’s the issue? She will be on the property ladder

It isn't making sense because there is no engagement and no legal agreement. Your dd is 100% free to do as she pleases.

This isn't making any swnse to me @cupfinalchaos.

Two decades ago we bough ds and dd a starter home each in London (zone 3). Held in Trust until the 30th birthday.

DD's boyfriends parents did similar and bought soon to be son in law and his brother a joint flat, when they were children. DD and bf are engaged. DD and BF have bought out his brother. Future sonIL retains his equity at the point of the buyout and he and dd have equal shares of the morrgage amount. All set out legally. DD's trust remains hers, at least until she is 30, when she can decide.

When I met DH, he had zilch. I had a London house. Prenup/legal agreement setting out my equity at the point of the marriage. From the date of the marriage, equity growth was equally split.

Something is not stacking up here. Is BF and/or his family from overseas?

I get you op, this could end up the same old story- his property his way. You’ll say make sure you have your own money and in ten years time she’ll be saying ‘oh crap’

Yanbu. I completely understand your concern and would feel the same if it was my daughter.

It would be one thing if she was only paying half of bills meaning that she could save up for a property of her own, but having to also pay “rent” (presumably to his parents or whoever bought the flat for him) for no piece of ownership in return doesn’t seem right.

She’ll be especially vulnerable if they have children together but she has no financial security. It would be far preferable for them to buy a property together that they both paid towards and where they both had ownership.

It doesn’t sound like this was “out of the blue” at all, if you say it was always on the cards that his parents would buy him a home, and also she went with him to look at properties and was fully aware it was happening. This doesn’t seem out of the blue at all.

Is she paying rent to his parents then, not him? It all sounds a bit odd and confusing.

He’s trying to prove this flat was bought BEFORE marriage if it all goes pear shaped later. He’s being savvy.

As far as I can see, you haven't answered the question about whether she'll be paying full market rent, or a reduced rent. If the latter then there is absolutely nothing for you to be worrying about as it can't (financially) go wrong for her. She'll have reduced living costs, whilst living together and they'll see if the relationship will work once reality sets in. She will have the ability to save more than if they were renting somewhere together. If she's paying full market rent then you still don't have anything to actively worry about, but it's not so advantageous for her. However she isn't in a 'worse' position than she would be if she was single. All that's been lost is the 'opportunity' to buy a place with a partner which thus makes it more accessible. However, would you really expect him to turn down the opportunity of being bought a flat in London?!

You clearly had very fixed ideas about how things should go for her, and he was central to that in (presumably) being the second income that helped support the joint purchase. He's now not - but that's life, there are other advantages.

To those who've said they wouldn't buy with somebody they're not married to - it's simple and relatively cheap to draw up a deed pre-purchase to deal with who's put what a) into the deposit and b) into ongoing mortgage and other contributions, and how it's dealt with if the couple split up. That ties off everything. My now-husband and I did this when we moved in together.

See, I think this is really difficult and one of the reasons I should be happy to be poor!
Let's say I could afford to buy for my son/daughter, when they grow up. If I gift it to my kid, and their partner, then if they split, that man/woman gets to walk with half my money (maybe having cheated on on hurt my kid-so I wouldn't want that).
Or I keep it in my name/my kid's name, and their partner might feel mad towards me that I don't trust them (and think I don't even like them). And they'd feel their first home wasn't really theirs, maybe.

But as your kid isn't married, and seems happy, I'd stay out of it. Obviously if they do marry, in the future, the couple should see a lawyer to agree how much of the plae is his/hers, and you can gift something, if you want to.