# Query re buying a second property whilst owning an "affordable house"



## McGeady46 (16 Oct 2008)

Myself and my partner are hoping to buy our first home together.

However, currently she owns an affordable home with Fingal.  The plan is to hold onto this home whilst renting out a room in it.  We will stay there at times and "officially" it will remain her primary residence.

The new property will officially be my primary residence, although in both our names I will be the only one paying the mortgage.

Does anyone know what the implications will be when it comes to us applying for a mortgage?

What are the Stamp Duty implications?

Does the bank automatically share our information with Revenue?

If there is Stamp Duty implications, how are we made aware of it and at what stage?

We have already started applying for a mortgage and one of the banks have been asking questions about the affordable housing side of things and I was just trying to wonder why?

Many thanks.


----------



## FKH (16 Oct 2008)

I would suggest that you buy the house in your sole name, especially if you are a first time buyer and will be paying the mortgage as there would be no stamp duty. Your girlfriend is not a FTB and so if you buy together you will pay stamp duty (unless new property).

I'm not sure but I would question how the Council would view someone with an affordable home buying a second property as you have to live in the affordable home (but can rent a room if there is more than one bedroom).

The Revenue will know that your girlfriend owns a second property when the purchase completes. She can only have one PPR and there could be a clawback of stamp duty on the apartment, plus potentially a clawback from the council.

Of course they might not notice!


----------



## McGeady46 (16 Oct 2008)

FKH said:


> I would suggest that you buy the house in your sole name......


 
Thanks for your reponse.

I forgot to say that the apartment we hope to buy is brand new and under 125metres.

We have a deposit on the place but I cannot buy it on my own as I can't get enough of a mortgage.

She bought the affordable house a few years ago and has been very lucky to do well in her job since then.

If the affordable house remains her PPR would I be right in saying that she would only have to pay Stamp Duty on the cost of half of the new apartment or on all of it? Who would advise us if we are liable for Stamp Duty?

Are there any ways (legal of course) that we would not be liable for Stamp Duty?

Would the new apartment be viewed as an "investment property" when it comes to getting a mortgage or would her half of the new place just be viewed as an investment property?


----------



## Complainer (17 Oct 2008)

McGeady46 said:


> We will stay there at times and "officially" it will remain her primary residence.


Can you expand on what this means?


----------



## FKH (17 Oct 2008)

If you and your girlfriend buy the apartment together you will not be FTB's but as the apartment is new there will be no stamp duty payable so you are safe in that respect. You would only have to pay stamp duty is the property was second hand. 

Your girlfriend already owns an affordable house and if she rents a room she should be ok so long as there is another bedroom in the property that she uses. You are specifically not allowed to buy and then rent out an affordable house and not live there.

I am not sure the position that Fingal CoCo would take if they discovered she didn't live in the affordable house but I can't imagine that it would be good.

I suppose if you take the view that you will live in the property but she is assisting you in buying it but will continue to live in her own apartment then you will be ok. 

Your solicitor should tell you that there will be no stamp duty as the property is new.


----------



## MandaC (17 Oct 2008)

FKH, I do not agree with you.  My thoughts would be that if one person already owns a property then the second property is an investment property and stamp duty will be levied accordingly.   Any other opinions?

I too would like to know what OP means by the new house being "official" ppr.
Either the affordable house is her PPR or not, you can't choose to have an "official" PPR from a taxation point of view.

If your girlfriend telephones Fingal Co. Co., they might be able to advise her of the exact terms and conditions of purchasing a second property whilst already owning an affordable house.  

There are definite stamp duty implications for your partner when she purchases the additional property.  This all hinges on the fact that your PPR cannot be chosen. 

Of course any Solicitor worth his salt would not sign off on this transaction without establishing the full facts and I would think the Solicitor is asking questions is not being awkward and is just trying to sum up the Stamp Duty liability.  Why would you be surprised  or wonder why the solicitor is asking questions about your partners existing property, which is relevant to her stamp duty implications?   Your girlfriend already owns a property and if she is purchasing a second, there will taxation implications, whether it is a new build or not.

No personal offence, but I am breaking my back paying a mortgage on my own house for full market value.   Why should some people benefit from owning two properties (one purchased at significantly reduced value) whilst other people struggle to pay a mortgage.   I am all for affordable housing, but I would be surprised  and also very disappointed if the criteria for for affordable housing allows people to be the beneficial owner of two properties.


----------



## FKH (18 Oct 2008)

The house isn't an investment property as one of the buyers will live there as their PPR. That is enough for them not to be investors. 

See below for the Revenue Commissioner's certificate for deeds where property is purchased by owner occupiers.

"..  the purchaser/one or more of the purchasers/a person or persons in right of the purchaser/a person or persons in right of one or more of the purchasers will occupy the dwellinghouse/apartment as his/her/their only or principal place of residence .."


----------



## MandaC (18 Oct 2008)

I dont think the poster could be deemed an investor.  Because the girlfriend already has a property ,my  query is how can she be deemed an *owner occupier *if she is already an *owner occupier *of another property?  They are separately assessed for tax and you can't have two PPR's.  How would that work?

From Fingal Co. Co. website

[broken link removed]

To avail of full benefit of the affordable housing scheme, it would appear that you must remain an owner occupier for 20 years.  

The wording from the original post "official" PPR sounds as if something is not quite right here.


----------



## Butter (18 Oct 2008)

The purpose of AH is to assist people to buy a house while on a low income, then if the purchaser does well in work in the following years and wants to buy a second property why not sell the AH and take what profit you are due and pay Fingal what they are due.  I don't think the AH was ever designed to help people buy an investment property.  Maybe Im daft but surely the OPs girlfriend could accept and be glad for the help she got when it was needed and be happy that she is now able to purchase under her own steam.


----------



## DerKaiser (18 Oct 2008)

Why bother holding on to the affordable home? 

The interest on the mortgage is probably a lot more than you'd get for renting one room.  

From a moral, legal and financial point of view you should sell it if you're not going to live there


----------



## McGeady46 (18 Oct 2008)

Marg said:


> The purpose of AH is to assist people to buy a house while on a low income, then if the purchaser does well in work in the following years and wants to buy a second property why not sell the AH and take what profit you are due and pay Fingal what they are due. I don't think the AH was ever designed to help people buy an investment property. Maybe Im daft but surely the OPs girlfriend could accept and be glad for the help she got when it was needed and be happy that she is now able to purchase under her own steam.


 
My gf is reluctant to sell in case things do not work out between us, and as she is not allowed to apply for the AHS a second time she has decided to hold onto the property for a while.  

As already stated I will solely be paying the mortgage on the new place.  No profit has been made and no rules have been broken.


----------



## McGeady46 (18 Oct 2008)

DerKaiser said:


> Why bother holding on to the affordable home?
> 
> The interest on the mortgage is probably a lot more than you'd get for renting one room.
> 
> From a moral, legal and financial point of view you should sell it if you're not going to live there


 
Morally we are doing nothing wrong.

Legally we are doing nothing wrong.

As already stated... My gf is reluctant to sell in case things do not work out between us, and as she is not allowed to apply for the AHS a second time she has decided to hold onto the property for a while.


----------



## MandaC (18 Oct 2008)

I disagree.  Legally she is doing something wrong.  She cant opt to have two principal private residences.

You might also confirm what you meant in your first post as "officially" her main residence.  

She is breaking the rules of the affordable housing scheme.  No profit has been made?  How do you make that out.  She purchased her first property at a significant discount when other people have to pay full whack.  Part of the conditions for that purchase is that she remains an owner occupier for 20 years.  She does not intend to do that and is therefore breaking the legal terms of her contract.

If she purchases  her new house with you as an owner occupier, how can she be an owner occupier of the affordable property as well.

Can understand her reluctance to sell her own home if she is not sure about how things will work out.  If she is unsure of that, perhaps the best advice is she should not buy another home in the meantime either.  

Also, if she has done well in her job, she will hopefully not need the assistance of the AH scheme the second time around and affordable housing can be given to those who need it.


----------



## McGeady46 (18 Oct 2008)

MandaC said:


> I disagree. Legally she is doing something wrong. She cant opt to have two principal private residences.
> 
> You might also confirm what you meant in your first post as "officially" her main residence.
> 
> ...


 
She won't be having two primary residences as legally she can't.

Her PPR will be her affordable home.

AH can only be applied for once so she will not be able to get it a second time.

She got the Affordable House fair and square.  She has not broken any rules.  There will be many many people who have an Affordable House who will have improvements in their situations over the years, nothing in the rules say that they have to give their homes back.


----------



## MandaC (18 Oct 2008)

ok - so how can she avail of stamp duty relief on the second property, if she is already an owner occupier somewhere else or do you not have to be an owner occupier to avail of it?

You still havent clarified by what you meant by "official" ppr?  What does this term mean, and why the inverted commas in the first post.


----------



## McGeady46 (18 Oct 2008)

MandaC said:


> ok - so how can she avail of stamp duty relief on the second property, if she is already an owner occupier somewhere else or do you not have to be an owner occupier to avail of it?
> 
> You still havent clarified by what you meant by "official" ppr? What does this term mean, and why the inverted commas in the first post.


 
I don't know about stamp duty, thus one of my reasons for posting.

She may stay in the new apartment with me a lot of the time but he AH will remain her official PPR.


----------



## Complainer (19 Oct 2008)

McGeady46 said:


> As already stated... My gf is reluctant to sell in case things do not work out between us, and as she is not allowed to apply for the AHS a second time she has decided to hold onto the property for a while.



So why not move into the AH with her until you are both ready to take the next step?



McGeady46 said:


> She may stay in the new apartment with me a lot of the time but he AH will remain her official PPR.



If she's not going to be living there (which we all know is the real intention here), then it's not her PPR.


----------



## MandaC (19 Oct 2008)

Complainer said:


> So why not move into the AH with her until you are both ready to take the next step?
> 
> 
> 
> If she's not going to be living there (which we all know is the real intention here), then it's not her PPR.



Absolutely agree.

Also, if the girlfriend is intending on doing everything legally, why the question about whether the Bank will inform the Revenue Commissioners of the existence of the Affordable House?  Why is this relevant if she has nothing to hide?


----------



## McGeady46 (19 Oct 2008)

So pretty quickly this thread has turned into a debate on the morals of AH rather than the queries I specifically wanted to know about. Conclusions have been jumped to, specifically in the post directly above this one, where half a query was taken out of context and made seem like I was asking something underhand.

Are there any rules in the AHS telling people that when they earn over a certain amount they must give away their homes? As stated a few times my gf will not be paying any of the mortgage of our new place, that will all be paid by me, her PPR will remain as it currently is - she is going on the mortgage in an effort to get as much money from the banks as possible.

To those who pm'd me, many thanks, you guys are right, there are begrudgers out there who don't like to see others do well. My gf applied for and got an Affordable House through all the proper channels. Now it seems that some want her to give up her home. We will be contacting Fingal in the morning to see what the story is but rest assured we will not do anything that will mean breaking any of the rules of the Scheme.


----------



## ajapale (19 Oct 2008)

McGeady46 said:


> So pretty quickly this thread has turned into a debate on the morals of AH rather than the queries I specifically wanted to know about.  Conclusions have been jumped to..



Questions relating to (exclusively) AF can be asked in the AF forum. 

Keep this thread to discuss the specific question(s) raised by the OP.

Please refrain from imputing motives on the part of the OP.

Would posters use the "report post"   facility to report post which they think might be breaching any posting guidelines? Thanks.

aj
(moderator)



McGeady46 said:


> Myself and my partner are hoping to buy our first home together.
> 
> However, currently she owns an affordable home with Fingal. The plan is to hold onto this home whilst renting out a room in it. We will stay there at times and "officially" it will remain her primary residence.
> 
> ...


----------



## McGeady46 (19 Oct 2008)

double post


----------



## MandaC (19 Oct 2008)

This forum should ensure that it does not assist anyone in evading their taxation responsibilities and if people post questions that are not clear, the Forum should be entitled to ask them to clarify.

The original poster has not yet claried what "officially" a PPR is(in inverted commas) is and it would certainly lead a lot of people to believe that they are not intending to be totally upfront about the whole thing.  The question as to whether the Banks disclosing information to the Revenue is similar.  People quite rightly made the point that perhaps now is not the right time to be purchasing a home together if one or more parties are unsure of the relationship.  From reading the original post, it came across to me exactly as Complainer took it up, that the AH is no longer going to be her PPR and she will now live for the most part in her new apartment of which she is the benefical owner.  

People in general are too quick to claim discrimination and begrudgery when people disagree with them.  The reality in this case is that all they are saying is that the Affordable Housing Process should be transparent and used for the aim of which it is set up.    

I differ from FKH in that I would be unsure that the girlfriend did not have a stamp duty liability on the purchase of the second home.  Yet the floor certificate states that she may not.  Stamp Duties will be payable at the close and will be assessed by the Solicitor.  A quick phone call to Revenue Stamp Duty Technical Services will clarify, though perhaps it should be in writing as someones personel can offer different opinions.

The reason the Banks are asking about affordable house is to (a) ensure the person with the Affordable House is not already over mortgaged and (b) perhaps they might be giving a different rate as one of the mortgagees will not be an owner occupier.

Also, the person with the affordable house should phone Fingal Co. Co. and outline their circumstances.  I am sure this kind of scenario has happened many times given that circumstances change.


----------



## MandaC (19 Oct 2008)

FKH said:


> The Revenue will know that your girlfriend owns a second property when the purchase completes. She can only have one PPR and there could be a clawback of stamp duty on the apartment, plus potentially a clawback from the council.
> 
> Of course they might not notice!




Coming from a tax background, if I had just one cent for every client who's previous advisor advised them that the Revenue might not notice, I would be retired and living a life of luxury by now.

Worst advice ever from a taxation angle.


----------



## ajapale (19 Oct 2008)

ajapale said:


> Would posters use the "report post"   facility to report post which they think might be breaching any posting guidelines? Thanks.
> aj
> (moderator)



MandaC and others.

Please use the "report post"   facility to report posts you suspect breach the posting guidelines. This way the moderators attention is drawn to the breach and effective action can be taken.

Thanks
aj
moderator


----------



## Complainer (19 Oct 2008)

McGeady46 said:


> her PPR will remain as it currently is


Any advice that you get based on this assumption will be flawed, given the scenario you outlined above.


----------



## circle (19 Oct 2008)

I would have thought that (quite aside from the AH issue), if the girlfriend is buying a second property, which she is claiming not to intend to use as her PPR, investor stamp duty rates would apply to the new purchase.


----------



## ASH83 (20 Oct 2008)

I purchased a home under the AF on my own a number of years ago, I then met my partner and we decided to live together, He moved into my home (this may be the more realistic option). We are marrying next year and we wish to buy a proerty together.

In order for us to do this the path we are taking is re-morg. my AF home (therefore I will be paying back the normal morg. not the reduced Co Co one) so that we can rent this property out and we are buying a property for ourselfs.

I would just like to make one point clear, when you own an AF home you are given your morg assessed on your income, this income is reviewed yearly. So at no point do AF home owners feel the are sailing through paying there Morg at there reduced rate. Our Morg rate is in line with our salarys both as they increase and decrease (and when they decrease you are brought into a meeting for them to assess your situation further, if you cant aford a home you cant keep it like anyone else) and our morg also increases according to the intrest rates like everyone else.

To the orginal poster, I understand were you are coming from in order to purchase the property you need to have your girlfriends earnings included.
Speak to your Morg advisor about the best option for yourself and your partner. But if she wants to have a property in her name too then maybe she needs to re-morg first so her home is no longer AF


----------



## Maximus152 (20 Oct 2008)

lol, look its simple its called affordable housing for a reason! This sounds like a calamity waiting to happen, as bad as our government departments can be at times when they come looking for tax or to dot the I's and cross the T's they can be very diligent. I think its a calculated risk, but me personally I think it has enough documentation/paper trail to blow up in your face. It may be okay this year or even next 5 years but down the road it will be a bone of contention with some council or some committee that's what usually happens, but hey what do I know, go with your guy feelings lol.


----------



## terrysgirl33 (20 Oct 2008)

I think the bottom line here is that if you can't afford to buy a house on your own, then you can't afford to buy a house.  Your girlfriend is just a girlfriend at this stage, there's no point complicating it by buying a house together (which she shouldn't be able to do, how is she going to afford two mortgages?) until you are sure that you are serious about each other.  

Can you afford a mortgage by saying you will be renting out a room?  How about just moving in with her for the time being?


----------



## starlite68 (20 Oct 2008)

very good advice terrysgirl33


----------



## FKH (20 Oct 2008)

I think what the OP was initially getting at was that his girlfriend would go on the new house and mortgage to help him afford the property. She will not be an investor as the OP will be occupying the property as his PPR and she will be allowing his to do that as per the Revenue guidelines on owner occupiers. There will be no stamp duty payable on the purchase. Of that I am sure.

In relation to the morals of the AHS I offer no opinion as it is not my place to preach to others as I firmly believe that everyone will use every avenue open to them to make their own lives better. Remember if the GF rents out her entire apartment she must register with the PTRB etc and deal with the consequences that will come with that.


----------



## MandaC (21 Oct 2008)

FKH said:


> I think what the OP was initially getting at was that his girlfriend would go on the new house and mortgage to help him afford the property. She will not be an investor as the OP will be occupying the property as his PPR and she will be allowing his to do that as per the Revenue guidelines on owner occupiers. There will be no stamp duty payable on the purchase. Of that I am sure.
> 
> In relation to the morals of the AHS I offer no opinion as it is not my place to preach to others as I firmly believe that everyone will use every avenue open to them to make their own lives better. Remember if the GF rents out her entire apartment she must register with the PTRB etc and deal with the consequences that will come with that.



Yes, that is very very interesting, certainly with people in the scenario where two people purchase and one is an existing property owner, that they can allow someone to live there without taking rent and still purchase with no stamp duty.

I would also be interested to know if interest relief could be gained on both mortgages. I would think not, as it is linked to whichever is your actual PPR?

It is a condition of the AH Scheme (Fingal) and I think the AH is with Fingal ,that you cannot rent out your entire property and it must remain owner occupied for 20 years.  You can avail of the rent a room scheme, subject to the limits for this.  

If everyone was to use every avenue open to them to make their own lives better (not just in the context of affordable housing), half of the population would be in jail.  Comments such as Revenue might not know are very ill judged to say the least and not what should be taken on board as tax advice under any of the tax heads.


----------



## DerKaiser (21 Oct 2008)

FKH said:


> I think what the OP was initially getting at was that his girlfriend would go on the new house and mortgage to help him afford the property. She will not be an investor as the OP will be occupying the property as his PPR and she will be allowing his to do that as per the Revenue guidelines on owner occupiers. There will be no stamp duty payable on the purchase. Of that I am sure.
> 
> In relation to the morals of the AHS I offer no opinion as it is not my place to preach to others as I firmly believe that everyone will use every avenue open to them to make their own lives better. Remember if the GF rents out her entire apartment she must register with the PTRB etc and deal with the consequences that will come with that.


 
The original post said this 

"The new property will officially be my primary residence, although in both our names I will be the only one paying the mortgage"

I made the mistake of mentioning moral in an earlier mail as did others but this was countered with begrudgers, etc, so I'll stick to whatI believe are the facts.

From what I've been led to believe if the girlfriend is put on the deeds she has an interest in the house and this will be either as:
1) An investor - In which case stamp duty is payable
2) An owner occupier - In which case she is no longer entitled to affordable housing


----------



## ramble (21 Oct 2008)

You need to check the rules of the particular affordable housing scheme, it may be that your girlfriend is entitled to rent it in its entirity, the schemes do recognise that personal situations change.  A lot of people are making wild guesses and allegations about the moral/legal fortitude of your particular senario.  Go to a solicitor who is familiar with this particular scheme and get proper advice before you make any decisions.


----------



## ellaella (21 Oct 2008)

ASH83 said:


> .
> 
> 
> I would just like to make one point clear, when you own an AF home you are given your morg assessed on your income, this income is reviewed yearly. So at no point do AF home owners feel the are sailing through paying there Morg at there reduced rate. Our Morg rate is in line with our salarys both as they increase and decrease (and when they decrease you are brought into a meeting for them to assess your situation further, if you cant aford a home you cant keep it like anyone else) and our morg also increases according to the intrest rates like everyone else.


 
Is this yearly review standard procedure?
I have purchased an affordable house with  mortgage from bank not local authority and throughout application process there was never a mention of a review.


----------



## beenalongday (21 Oct 2008)

@ellaella. I'd also like to know this too. I did ask Fingal and they basically said you can earn what you like once the deal is done.

I'm just about to sign so if this is not the case I'd like to know!


----------



## MandaC (22 Oct 2008)

ramble said:


> You need to check the rules of the particular affordable housing scheme, it may be that your girlfriend is entitled to rent it in its entirity, the schemes do recognise that personal situations change.  A lot of people are making wild guesses and allegations about the moral/legal fortitude of your particular senario.  Go to a solicitor who is familiar with this particular scheme and get proper advice before you make any decisions.[/QUOTE
> 
> The Website from Fingal Affordable Housing outlines that you cannot rent our your affordable house in its entirety.
> 
> [broken link removed]


----------



## DerKaiser (22 Oct 2008)

MandaC said:
			
		

> The Website from Fingal Affordable Housing outlines that you cannot rent our your affordable house in its entirety.
> 
> [broken link removed]


Good to clear that up factually.  It's quite insulting for someone to come on talking about wild guesses, the implication that that you could turn an affordable house into an investor property before the clawback period with no clawback is itself a wild guess


----------



## mainasia (22 Oct 2008)

Renting out a room but not occupying the house is against the rules of the Affordable Housing scheme, that's a well known fact and the  reason for the 'officially' in quotes. When some posters point this out they get called 'begrudgers'. What's Ireland coming to, entitlement culture.


----------



## MandaC (22 Oct 2008)

DerKaiser said:


> Good to clear that up factually.  It's quite insulting for someone to come on talking about wild guesses, the implication that that you could turn an affordable house into an investor property before the clawback period with no clawback is itself a wild guess



I not sure why that  poster was going on about wild guesses either.  I had originally posted that link on post number 8 of this thread to advise the op that they specifically could not rent out the entire house, so it was quite clear early on that the fact that the house could not be rented out was not any kind of wild guess or assumption.


----------



## McGeady46 (23 Oct 2008)

mainasia said:


> Renting out a room but not occupying the house is against the rules of the Affordable Housing scheme, that's a well known fact and the reason for the 'officially' in quotes. When some posters point this out they get called 'begrudgers'. What's Ireland coming to, entitlement culture.


 
Did you read this sentence?

"We will stay there at times and "officially" it will remain her primary residence."

We clearly will be occupying the dwelling.

Yes there are a lot of begrudgers around.


----------



## mainasia (23 Oct 2008)

Your gf will clearly be moving in with you. Moving in assumes she is moving out. I don't want officially means but I guess at least 50% and probably something like 80-90% (I don't assume to know the exact rules there). It's funny I only hear that word in Ireland- begrudger, seems the latest way to parry any type of comment when you get to the nitty gritty. Bertie Ahern tried that one too.


----------



## DerKaiser (23 Oct 2008)

McGeady46 said:


> Yes there are a lot of begrudgers around.


You're girlfriend can't have both as her PPR, she's either an investor in the new place or the old place.  This is not begrudgery, this is fact


----------



## McGeady46 (23 Oct 2008)

DerKaiser said:


> You're girlfriend can't have both as her PPR, she's either an investor in the new place or the old place. This is not begrudgery, this is fact


 
She *will* have only one PPR as stated throughout this thread.


----------



## csirl (23 Oct 2008)

A persons PPR is where they sleep overnight more than 50% of the time. You can have only one PPR. You cannot choose where your PPR as obviously you can only overnight more than 50% of the time in one location, so this location is your PPR whether you like it or not.

Based on the above, as your gf will have a beneficial interest in more than one property, then her non-PPR property must be declared as an investment property. There will be taxation consequences to this. There may also be AH issues.

Unfortunately for you, with the IT systems that Revenue use, it will not be possible for her to say nothing and hope that nobody realises she has a second property. May take them a year or two for Revenue to investigate as they generally deal with things in batches, but it will happen. Remember that Revenue know who owns every property in Ireland and who's name is on every mortgage in Ireland as well as where everyone is claiming to live.

So, what you need to do is go away and investigate what the taxation and AH implications will be for your gf if you go ahead with the purchase.



> Myself and my partner are hoping to buy our first home together.
> 
> However, currently she owns an affordable home with Fingal. The plan is to hold onto this home whilst renting out a room in it. We will stay there at times and "officially" it will remain her primary residence.
> 
> The new property will officially be my primary residence, although in both our names I will be the only one paying the mortgage.


 
This statement indicates that the home you are buying together will be her PPR. So you need to talk to the council about the conversion of an AH home into an investment property - how to go about doing it. She then needs to register with PRTB etc. and look at the taxation implications of owning an investment property that is rented out commerically.

The fact that she may stay in the former AH home from time to time does not alter its status as in investment property that is rented out. It cannot be her PPR for the reasons outlined in your post.


----------



## Paraic (23 Oct 2008)

If she is keeping her existing home as a ppr, She will be classed as an investor then on the new place your buying. The new mortgage lender will take into her account her existing mortgage and if she has any excess money to finance the new mortgage.
As you are a ftb and an investor buying a property I would imagine you also be liable for stamp duty at investor rates.


----------



## Butter (23 Oct 2008)

If your girlfriend is concerned about selling her house and the relationship not working out, why don't you just live together for a while in her house and see how things work out first.  You might be in a better position to buy another house in a few years time?
Another thing for your girlfriend to think about - if her name is on the mortgage then she is jointly liable for the debt whether or not you say that you will be paying the mortgage.  If, in the worst case you did split up, then she would still have her own house as security, but she would still be liable for half the mortgage debt on the second house.  
Would her name be on the deeds of the house as well?  If they are then she is a beneficial owner of the house and because she already owns a house I believe she would be classified as a second-time buyer/investor and would be liable to stamp duty.
Have you looked into getting the mortgage on your own with your parents or your girlfriend as a guarentor.  I don't know how banks feel about that at the moment but it might be worth looking into.  
One other thing - if your girlfriend is really concerned about how things might work out between you in the future, should you really be buying a house together?  It's a major committment and very difficult to sort out if things do go wrong.


----------



## ASH83 (27 Oct 2008)

ellaella said:


> Is this yearly review standard procedure?
> I have purchased an affordable house with mortgage from bank not local authority and throughout application process there was never a mention of a review.


 
I bought through SDCC, and yes its is standard for all with SDCC (As I have only delt with them I can only say SDCC but I would assume it would be common practice across the board), but my Mortgage is not through the back but through SDCC as I bought on the very first AF houseing pilot scheam and no-one got loans from banks. In April of every year you are sent out forms to fill in and you attach your P60. If you earn over €25k per annum you do not have to fill out these forms and they only look at peoples incomes from €25k and below.


----------



## Kate10 (28 Oct 2008)

I haven't read all the replies but it seems to me that people are confused about the difference between have a property as your PPR and being an owner-occupier of it.  

The OP's gf will be an owner-occupier of the new property from a stamp duty perspective, as one of the owners, the OP, will occupy it.  It does not matter if she does not live there permanently.

Her PPR will continue to be her AH, as long as she continues to live there.

The new property will be an investment property for the gf, so she will pay CGT if she ever sells her interest in it.  She would also pay income tax on any rental income from it.

There is nothing illegal or immoral about any of the above.

However, OP, I agree with some of the other posters that you may be getting yourself into an unnecesarily messy situation, given that  your relationship is new.  I have acted for lots of young couples buying homes together.  A co-ownership agreement can only give you limited protection.


----------



## DerKaiser (28 Oct 2008)

*This is the definition of owner occupier on the revenue website*

*Owner Occupier*

An owner-occupier is a person who purchases a new apartment or house for use as their principal place of residence (PPR) and no rent, other than rent obtained under rent a room arrangements, is derived from the property for a period of two years from the date of the purchase.


----------



## Kate10 (28 Oct 2008)

I'm sure that that definition does appear on the Revenue website but it is not exhaustive.  If, for example, I already own a home that I occupy with my husband, and I buy another house for my elderly mother to live in rent free, I will qualify for owner occupier relief on my purchase.

Similarly, if the op and his gf buy the new house,  and the op occupies it as his ppr, and the gf receives no income from his occupation, then the purchase qualifies for owner occupier relief.


----------



## Stifster (28 Oct 2008)

Kate10 said:


> I'm sure that that definition does appear on the Revenue website but it is not exhaustive. If, for example, I already own a home that I occupy with my husband, and I buy another house for my elderly mother to live in rent free, I will qualify for owner occupier relief on my purchase.
> 
> Similarly, if the op and his gf buy the new house, and the op occupies it as his ppr, and the gf receives no income from his occupation, then the purchase qualifies for owner occupier relief.


 
Do you know this from personal or professional experience?


----------



## Dreamerb (29 Oct 2008)

Kate10 said:


> I'm sure that that definition does appear on the Revenue website but it is not exhaustive. If, for example, I already own a home that I occupy with my husband, and I buy another house for my elderly mother to live in rent free, I will qualify for owner occupier relief on my purchase.
> 
> Similarly, if the op and his gf buy the new house, and the op occupies it as his ppr, and the gf receives no income from his occupation, then the purchase qualifies for owner occupier relief.


Source? 

Because to the best of anyone's knowledge here, if this new house isn't her PPR and if there's _any _question of her contributing _anything _to the mortgage, then the OP can't obtain FTB stamp duty status, and she's classed as an investor. He may receive mortgage interest relief as FTB on the basis that it is his PPR, but that's all.


----------



## shellywomble (1 Nov 2008)

what would happen in a case where a person has applied for a local authority mortgage and also has a property of high value  in another country  rented out  would they be eligable for this type of mortgage if they disclosed the rented property as i would have thought these mortgages were for  specific cases


----------



## grackal (4 Nov 2008)

An alternative, and legal, and morally right solution is to declare to the council you want to own the AH outright, pay the clawback, then do what you like with it.


----------



## Bronte (4 Nov 2008)

I believe that parents can be joined on the deeds of the purchase of a house for their child in order to enable that child to purchase a home (banks make it a condition in certain cases).  They are not in this instance classed as investors so this could be the scenario here.  Nearly all revenue rules are not clearcut.  In this case as the girlfriend is not paying anything towards the mortgage she would appear to have no beneficial interest in it.  She is just helping her boyfriend in his pursuit of a home.  They need a good advisor to tell them what is correct starting with the AH council and then revenue (in writing) and before they make this giant leap they need to think about what happens if it all doesn't work out.  It is exceedingly messy to say the least and if I was advising the girlfriend I'd tell her not to proceed as she has more to lose than the OP.


----------

