Is it better to be a first time buyer or have a property?

[bobbyjoe]

Hi,

At xmas time my 2 sister were looking to buy a house together. However as one of them has just return from living abroad she had yet to get a job. As a favour I went as down on a mortgage application to help them out. Since then I've had no input what so ever into the house -and I was assured that because I'm not on the deeds of the house it should be fine for me to apply for first time buyer mortgage again. My name is not on the deeds of the house but is on the mortgage application. What has happened now is that I want to buy an apt with my boyfriend.
Should i apply as a first time buyer or would I be better off being part owner of a property when looking for a mortgage?

any thoughts??

thanks

 

[Dreamerb]

You will have to explain your status to any lender - the fact that you are already responsible for a mortgage (whether you're actually paying it or not is pretty much immaterial) may make lenders unwilling to offer you significant funding. If you don't own the property, you don't own it: it's silly to ask in what situation you'll be better off. In any event, you'll probably be significantly better off if you are treated as a bona fide first time buyer, for the purposes of stamp duty and mortgage interest relief.


Disclose the current mortgage up-front (it'll turn up on a credit check anyway) and explain who is responsible for it. If you can be removed from your sisters' mortgage, it will probably simplify things enormously.

 

[PM1234]

If your sisters are now working and have been for over six months (permanant positions hopefully) they can contact their lender and ask for you to be removed from the mortgage. Should be in a position to do so if the multiples add up.

You are not on the title deeds so you won't incur legal expenses for this.