Dd, boyfriend and flat purchase

[cupfinalchaos]

Dd has been renting with her boyfriend. She has told me they have discussed getting engaged next year. Out of the blue he was bought a beautiful flat in London by his family, and wants dd to move there with him. She would be paying rent for a finite period of time to cover certain costs.

My AIBU is that I feel if they plan to get engaged shortly, surely they should be buying together? We would have helped with a small deposit and dd earns as much as he does, if not more. I’m delighted for her boyfriend who I love, but also want DD to get onto the property ladder.

Did they not buy tougher because they are not sure they are commited yet and they are not married?

I find it strange that he charges her "rent" for a flat that's already been bought. What is he doing with the money? I did not grow up in the UK - is that quite normal here?

Anyway, I would not do that to my future husband and I would not marry someone who asks me for "rent" too. Splitting bills, contributing to a mortgage etc is good but it's not ok when a boyfriend/girlfriend takes money from another without a real need. Maybe it's just me though.

Why so desperate for her to get on the property ladder? I assume they’re relatively young? As most have said - sounds like a great situation to pay lower rent in London and keep saving! Being on the property ladder isn’t the be all and end all

I can understand that. She will be contributing to his property, and if they split up, she would have nothing. If they get married, it becomes a martial asset unless they’ve prepared a document to say otherwise.
however, it doesn’t stop her buying her own property, even if she rents it, she will build equity and it will pay for itself.

Why? Or at least, why do you think she wouldn't be able to save half of whatever property she could afford to halves on a mortgage on?

Providing the rent she'll pay will be less than her current rent (and bills will not be more) she's getting a preferable situation from the get go and so long as the finite amount of time for paying rent isn't very long, then this sounds like it's good for her. She can invest the money she saves now and when the rent stops, even more. That is presumably going to be more than she would have paid into a mortgage?

Her investments could well grow significantly faster than she'd get through investing in a property. Over the lifetime of a 30 year mortgage you pay back over double. House values are currently expected to double in that time frame so you'd come out with roughly what you put in. Investments should grow above what you put in over that time frame, so you'd come out with more. (Obviously there's always risk with investing - whether that's in the stock market or housing).

Very late 20’s not so young.. of course I want her to build up some equity in a home and have something of value.

When now DH moved in with me I owned my flat, we split bills including my mortgage 50 50, why should I pay for him to live when at that point he was just my boyfriend. He was pleased with the deal as it was significantly cheaper than the private rent and bills he'd been paying, it gave him opportunity to save.

Yes- maybe I’m overthinking it.

look at it as a test as to whether they are compatible living together at least if it doesn’t work out she hasn’t got the ball ache of selling and splitting everything

What was her/their plan towards home ownership before this property was purchased out of the blue?

Laws on this vary depending on where you are (England, Scotland), how long the marriage is and whether there are any children.

but yes, if they get married and it was in his name pre marriage and they live there then in England at least it’s a marital asset.

more generally they are clearly at an early stage of the relationship and buying together can go badly wrong in this sort of situation if they break up quickly

That's ridiculous advice when you're talking about buying your own home.

As far as I know it does not automatically become a marital asset if it was fully bought in his name before they married. They have to live there for a long time, have childern and so on and even then it's not black and white...

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.

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.

It had always been on the cards that he would be bought a home at one point but they assumed more in the distant future and they were happy renting for the time being. The circumstances of his parents changed and the right property came up.

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

No she will not be paying anywhere near full market rent, couldn’t afford to anyway due to the location.

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.

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.

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’

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?

which bit isn’t making sense? No they are not from abroad.

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

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

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.