does anyone have good / bad experience or knowledge of shared ownership?

[likeatonneofbricks]

in this case it would be one person owning two thirds of the property - mortgaged, and the other would own 1/3 in cash. Would the first prson's mortgage be on better rate than most if deposit is 1/3 on total value, but deposit paid by second person (as their total share)?
If the place needs to be sold at some point can one party insist on selling legally (hopefully)?

'of' not 'on total value'

yes someone can force a sale thru court if necessary TOLATA decides who gets what

www.rcsolicitors.co.uk/chiltern-family-law/living-together/guides/land.htm

er..wouldn't sharers get exactly what they've put in? , i.e. in this case 2/3 and 1/3 respectively? also when signing contract of purchase wouldn't this be put into it(just to make sure)?
are there any positive stories though? is splitting the bills too complicated?

and what about better mortgage rate for the 2/3 as opposed of that person was buying own place for the value of that 2/3 but with no big deposit?

I have no experience of sharing but I've given it some serious thought in the past, so here's my tuppence!

Although it's clear on buying the house what the contributions of the two parties are, the value of the house will change over time, and your contributions towards this change of value could be different.

If both parties were on a mortgage, then when it comes to sell, it wouldn't be fair to look only at the initial investment, the contribution towards the mortgage should also be looked at.

In the case of a mortgagee and a cash buyer, then there are actually three owners here: each of the people and the bank/mortgage provider.

If you were to sell immediately after buying, then the cash owner with 1/3 will own exactly that, but the mortgagee will own only the deposit they put in. The bank owns the rest.

Over time, the mortgagee will pay money. At the point of sale I guess the cash buyer would get 1/3, the bank would get paid off and the mortgagee would get what's left.

Unless - and here's where it could get really complicated - it could be said that one party had contributed more to the property gaining value - by funding an extension or other improvement works, for example. Then that might need to be taken into consideration.

And then if the two parties are married or have kids then there are a whole other set of rules to take account of.

So, not necessarily straightforward!

However I'm into the idea of communal living, which is why I've thought about it so much!

I reckon you need to have a solid agreement up front about what happens when if you want to sell.

Yes, you would want to have an agreement in place which sets out:

1. what proportions you own the property in (including how any increase or decrease in value is to be shared out)

2. who is liable for the mortgage

3. what happens if one of you wants to sell - does the other person get right of first refusal to buy the seller's share? in that case how will you reach a price - eg average of 3 agent valuations? if the other person can't/doesn't want to buy the seller's share, can the seller insist that the whole property is sold?

4. how you deal with the cost of any repairs needed, and shared costs such as insurance. are these split 50/50, or 1:2? and will you have a "kitty" for such expenses that you each contribute a monthly sum to, or will you only pay for these expenses as and when they arise (which leaves you exposed to having to chase the other person for their share...)

You may be able to find some template agreements on the web if you have a look. Maybe try moneysavingexpert?

thank you feet and minipie.
If the place is sold the mortgagee would buy a smaller place so i assume they can transfer the mortgage as in normal cases of non shared ownerships. This person is already owning on a mortgage, the idea is to swap for a shared bigger place so that it's a better investment but also a better mortgage rate.
Still no one answered about a better rate - will this be the case if cah sharer provides such a big deposit (1/3)?
with bills andrepairs - yes obvious point, not sure whether that can be discussed and made legal upfront, obviuosly helps to trust each other. I'd say it should 1:3 generally, not 50:50 especially with coucnil tax and stuff.
mini, only one person can get a mortgage so that's clear anyway. and as to you point 3 - yes I'm sure both should be able to insist on selling as the cash person would be able to affort to buy out, not sure about the second owner, they might. With owning to me it's clear that shares should be 1:3, why would it be different if that's hte outlay.

I think the main worry is really if one can't pay the bills for a (not long)period
(i.e. not to the extent of selling) and that's the sharer with a smaller share. But as they would get such a big deposit in place so that mortgagee benefits they may still think it's worth going for it? It may not be the case at all, but how to convince the mortgage-payer in case that's their main worry about the whole thing? can it be legalisede that say if person B doesn't pay bills for say more than 3mnths, the place will be sold?

Bear in mind that the mortgage provider is likely to want to have a mortgage over the entire house - not just the 2/3 belonging to the person with the mortgage. A mortgage over 2/3 is no good to them as they can't repossess and sell 2/3 of a house.

I suspect they might also want the 1/3 person to either agree that they have no legal rights to the property, or be named on the mortgage.

I don't know if the 1/3 person would be happy with this?

I think it would be worth you speaking to a mortgage provider (eg halifax, nationwide) to see what they would do in this scenario.

ha, the person paying over 200K is not going to forsake their property rights! I thought they can both go on the deeds and the bank may well want to own evrything and to look at the 1/3 cash at the deposit but with proviso that if the house is sold the deposit gets fully returned to the person who paid it?

Thought not!

I don't know how it would work tbh - the mortgage provider might want both people to be liable for the mortgage which again the person paying 1/3 cash may not like. Best to speak to a mortgage provider!

so if you aer both on a mortgage agreement, can it be specifies that only one party id responsible for monthly payments and the other contributes only the (whole) deposit?

Not sure - you'd have to ask a mortgage provider that question.

I don't know who to ask, I haven't got a mortgage myself, that's why thought people on here may have experience and advice.

I think who pays what is up to you. You can draw up an agreement about what you do when you sell.

But as far as the mortgage company is concerned, they want to know the mortgage is being paid. If the other person stops paying, I would imagine you'd be liable for the debt.

This is just what I think though! You would need to ask the professionals.

I've got my last 3 mortgages through London and Country brokers (they're no fee and independent and the Guardian always recommends them )

www.lcplc.co.uk/

Perhaps they can advise you?

If you do speak to someone about it let us know what they say, I'm curious!

thanks, three! will do.