Joint mortgage question

[Danny_Boy 10]

---------- Post added 31-03-2018 at 16:50 ----------

 

[/color]

Please ignore this.

 

 

Any reposession is generally straight forward. If a wife/husband tried doing any sort of claim, then the lender can reclaim any costs for the reposession including legal and takeover.

Ultimately it would be the husband and wife who end up paying.

 

That said, any company who are putting a mortgage on a property in a sole name, would require an additional occupant form to be signed. This waives any legal right to stop a reposession.

If the borrower failed to note that there were further people living over than age of 17 who is not one of their children, then that would be giving false information.

Pretty simple really.

 

There are many reasons people put mortgages under a sole name, credit score and affordability if the other applicant doesn't earn money, are just 2.

It could be easier to verify just the one persons documents and then that is just a preference.

 

As for the OP, I'd suggest there is more to this story than is being relayed to you and us

 

---------- Post added 31-03-2018 at 12:11 ----------

 

 

There's plenty of reasons that aren't dodgy, Danny, and I am surprised that you wouldn't know that with the line of work you're in.

 

Call me synical if you want Robbie but having been in the industry almost ten years there is rarely a reasonable reason to do what the OP has suggested. Credit score & affordability are reasons but not good ones in my opinion. As an advisor it would be irresponsible of me to arrange a mortgage for someone when one of a married couple has affordability issues and also lenders do not like finiancial connections having poor credit hence why most lenders will not entertain a married couple applying in one name, unless it’s re-mortgage that was originally in one name.

 

Anyone wanting to do what the OP suggested would set alarm bells ringing for me.

Edited March 31, 2018 by Danny_Boy

[Robbie Loving 10]

 

Call me synical if you want Robbie but having been in the industry almost ten years there is rarely a reasonable reason to do what the OP has suggested. Credit score & affordability are reasons but not good ones in my opinion. As an advisor it would be irresponsible of me to arrange a mortgage for someone when one of a married couple has affordability issues and also lenders do not like finiancial connections having poor credit hence why most lenders will not entertain a married couple applying in one name, unless it’s re-mortgage that was originally in one name.

 

Credit score is definitely a good reason, with how easy it can be to pick up a CCJ or default and for how long it remains on file.

 

Affordabilty is definitely a tricky one, but quite common I would say. Especially with how commmon zero hour contracts are becomming and not fitting with a lenders policy.

It doesn't mean they can not afford their mortgages, its just that they can not evidence it sufficiently to the lenders requirements.

Or if they are solely a house person, that can have more of detriment being on the application than it does them being keyed as a dependant.

 

For some people it is just preference.

 

Anyone wanting to do what the OP suggested would set alarm bells ringing for me.

 

With how it is being presented, definitely.

I don't believe a lender has requested this occur.

 

So you think that someone who is clearly part of a family unit and in law, a contributor in kind, who isn’t party to the mortgage would sign an ‘additional occupant form’, which is actually called an ‘occupiers waiver form’. Who is going to inform the lender of their existence, when it is obvious that there is a reason for them not being party to the mortgage?

 

There's a choice.... Do they want a mortgage?

If they do, they sign it. If they don't, they look elsewhere.

[Cyclone 10]

‘Would require’ doesn’t sound like an option to me.

 

It's an option for the couple applying for the mortgage isn't it. They're not being forced into taking the mortgage, she isn't being forced into signing it. So that's an option.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

The non-owning adult occupier (O) could be a spouse, quasi-spouse, adult offspring, sub-tenant, etc.

The point is that O might be found to be irremovable if the mortgagee [lender] has to repossess against the mortgagor [borrower].

So the mortgagee will always require O to sign a disclaimer form before the mortgage advance is made.

[Calahonda 11]

The non-owning adult occupier (O) could be a spouse, quasi-spouse, adult offspring, sub-tenant, etc.

The point is that O might be found to be irremovable if the mortgagee [lender] has to repossess against the mortgagor [borrower].

So the mortgagee will always require O to sign a disclaimer form before the mortgage advance is made.

 

Jeff,

 

If O has a very poor credit record, how would the lender protect themselves if they had no knowledge of O’s existence. Would the purchaser named on the mortgage have been able to purchase if they had declared that there would be someone with a bad credit record living in the property, irrespective of a signed declaration?

[Tedcardew 10]

I cannot see a situation (that is not dodgy) where a spouse wouldn't be allowed on the mortgage regardless of their employment situation or income.

 

My wife isn’t allowed on our mortgage by our lender as she is from overseas and does not yet have indefinite leave to remain in the U.K.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

If O has a very poor credit record, how would the lender protect themselves if they had no knowledge of O’s existence. Would the purchaser named on the mortgage have been able to purchase if they had declared that there would be someone with a bad credit record living in the property, irrespective of a signed declaration?

Yes, usually- because O would have no mortgage obligations and therefore the poor credit record would not be relevant.

But the mortgagor (borrower) would have had to declare O's existence and presence.

Failure to do that would be fraud- a criminal offence as well as a civil wrong (tort, and probably breach of contract too).