‘We bought a house together six months after we met'
The first time Lorraine Feng and her boyfriend dared to discuss their salaries with each other was when they were applying for a mortgage.
The couple had only met six months previously, but sky-high London rents had convinced them to pool together their savings and buy a new-build flat on the Northern line.
'We were paying £2,000 per month individually in rent. It was getting too much so we decided to commit,' says Feng, 32. 'The decision to buy wasn't impulsive. It came from a real need.'
She and her partner, Tomasz Przytula, 31, are part of a growing generation of couples buying homes together soon after meeting – and, perhaps, before they are fully ready.
A survey by Skipton building society found that 64pc of adults in relationships value getting on the property ladder over getting married.
It is not difficult to see why. It takes the average single person 11 years of saving to get on the property ladder, according to estate agency Hamptons. This time is halved when buying in a couple is factored in.
For Feng and Przytula, the frustration of handing over half of their monthly pay cheques to their landlords proved the tipping point. In January 2024, they paid a deposit of £57,000 on a flat in Barnet, London – 10pc of the apartment's total value.
The property is held in joint ownership, with Przytula putting down a bigger percentage of the deposit.
Neither Feng nor Przytula borrowed from their parents: 'Luckily, we are both quite frugal and we both agreed that paying rent was lining someone else's pockets.
'Tomasz does earn more than me, but we agreed to keep it simple and split the mortgage payments 50/50,' Feng says. She is a product analyst, while Przytula is software engineer.
A year into home ownership, they both agree that they made the right decision to buy so early on in their relationship, and have no regrets. The couple have no agreement in place about how the property should be split if they need to do so.
Battling a breakup
But of course, love does turn sour for many, and those that have committed too soon have found the harder part of extracting themselves from a relationship is the mortgage that ties them together.
Molly*, 28, and her military boyfriend, Rob*, 32, were desperate to get on the property ladder.
They had been together for just under 24 months when they completed on the property, but had not spent much time together. Rob had been deployed for six months on tour, and was away with his job on and off throughout their relationship.
'We bought a starter home in Gloucestershire with a deposit in which I contributed 65pc and he contributed 35pc,' says Molly. 'The house was bought for £365,000. My deposit came from savings and family help.'
In 2020, two years into living in their home, the relationship broke down. Rob moved back to military accommodation and Molly remained in the house.
'We both come from divorced parents so had the nous to draw up a deed of trust before we bought. Thank goodness we did because dividing the asset was harder than anything I have ever done,' she says.
Added to this was a second mortgage they had taken out to cover the cost of a refurbishment, which made it more complicated.
'We used legal representation because I wanted to stay and he wanted to sell. We had three valuations – the house had risen in value in the two years we were there – we took the middle one,' she says.
'I'm quite stoic and try to keep a fair head on my shoulders but it was really hard. There were also animals involved and furniture to argue over, and in the meantime, we were carrying the burden of joint liability for the mortgage payments until he sold his share to me.'
Ignoring the warnings
Other couples who have wanted to buy with their partner have encountered resistance from friends and family who feel they are fast-forwarding their relationship too soon.
Sophie*, 30, and her boyfriend Toby*, 33, have been dating for a year.
'One evening we ended up scrolling through houses online and saw one we liked, listed for £200,000 in Manchester. We viewed it and ended up putting in an offer – we were surprised and delighted when it was accepted,' Sophie says.
They have faced warnings and negativity from loved ones driven by concern.
'My family have asked me to pull out of the sale because they are worried that it's too soon for us as a couple. We are yet to complete, but the whole process has felt negative because of what they have said.'
Sophie and Toby are pressing ahead and, as to the thorny issue of what happens if things do go wrong, they say they will deal with it if that eventuality occurs.
'We haven't got a formal agreement in place outlining the split of the assets, but we hope that is not something we will have to face.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
World Bank urges 'radical' debt transparency for developing countries
LONDON, June 20 (Reuters) - The World Bank is urging "radical" debt transparency for developing countries and their lenders to stave off future crises, it said in a report released on Friday. The Bank wants to broaden the depth and detail of what sovereign countries disclose regarding new loans, as more of them enter complex, off-budget borrowing deals due to global market turmoil. "When hidden debt surfaces, financing dries up and terms worsen," World Bank senior managing director Axel van Trotsenburg said in a statement, adding: "Radical debt transparency, which makes timely and reliable information accessible, is fundamental to break the cycle." The Bank wants countries to make legal and regulatory reforms that mandate transparency when signing new loan contracts and to share more granular debt data. It also wants more regular audits, the public release of debt restructuring terms, and for creditors to open their loan and guarantee books. It is calling for better tools for international financial institutions to detect misreporting. The World Bank and other multilateral banks have been pressing for years to improve lending transparency. The proportion of low-income countries reporting some debt data is now above 75%, up from below 60% in 2020. But only 25% of them disclose loan-level information. As financing costs spike due to trade wars and geopolitical risk, more countries are using arrangements such as central bank swaps and collateralized transactions that complicate reporting. Senegal has used private debt placements as it negotiates with the International Monetary Fund over misreporting of its previous debts, and Cameroon and Gabon have also used what are known as "off-screen" deals. Angola recently had to pay a $200-million margin call after a rout in its bond prices. In Nigeria, the central bank disclosed in early 2023 that billions of U.S. dollars of its foreign exchange reserves were tied up in complex financial contracts negotiated by the previous leadership. The Bank said broader loan coverage and deeper loan-by-loan disclosures would enable the international community to fully assess public debt exposure.
Glasgow Times
2 hours ago
- Glasgow Times
300 jobs at risk as firm moves Scottish Power contract to South Africa
The outsourcing firm Capita confirmed that all its staff working on their contract with Scottish Power in the UK have been placed at risk of redundancy, STV News has reported. Around 303 roles are at risk, with workers in home move, prepayment, and smart metering services, and domestic customer services among those affected. Scottish Power has its headquarters in Glasgow, with centres across Scotland and in England. The London-based firm has provided customer support for Scottish Power since signing a five-year deal in 2022 worth a reported £63 million. Five work packages will still be delivered over the next three years, but operations will transition to South Africa, a memo seen by STV News reportedly said. Meanwhile, work on two packages still to be delivered will also be transitioned to South Africa, but through another outsourcing firm. It has been reported that some staff will be let go in October, while others may be made redundant in February next year. The announcement was made to staff on Wednesday, along with at-risk letters issued on the same day. A minimum 45-day collective consultation period will begin on Thursday. Capita previously provided customer support services for Scottish Power between 2005 and 2016. A Capita spokesperson said: 'Changes to our delivery model unfortunately mean that all colleagues working on our Scottish Power contract in the UK have been placed at risk of redundancy. 'Our priority is to support impacted colleagues through this change, and includes looking at redeployment opportunities where possible.' Scottish Power has been approached for comment.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
Breakingviews - Uncle Sam's stablecoin passion has shaky rationale
LONDON, June 19 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Uncle Sam is going all-in on stablecoins. President Donald Trump backed, opens new tab the privately issued cryptocurrencies whose value is pegged to the U.S. dollar within days of his inauguration in January. Now Congress is poised to legislate, after the Senate this week approved the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins – or GENIUS - Act. The newly supportive regulatory environment has drawn a flood of interest from potential issuers, from major banks, opens new tab to retailers, opens new tab such as Walmart (WMT.N), opens new tab and (AMZN.O), opens new tab, according to media reports. Meanwhile stablecoin specialist Circle Internet, opens new tab(CRCL.N), opens new tab, which listed on the New York Stock Exchange this month, has a digital dollar surrogate, USDC, which already has coins worth over $60 billion in circulation, opens new tab. Commercial interest is nothing new. Tech-savvy American corporates have long recognised stablecoins as the one species of digital money with a compelling mainstream use. The first generation of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin offered not just a way of digitally storing and transferring value, but the ability to denominate it in their own standard units. That model caught on with speculative traders but never made much headway in the world of digital payments. Stablecoins, by contrast, combine the novelty of global, real-time availability and programmability with the familiarity of national currency units. That makes them uninteresting as speculative bets – but well suited as methods for payment. A simple comparison shows how the two models serve different purposes. Bitcoin – the original and by far the largest own-standard cryptocurrency – has tokens in circulation worth $2.1 trillion. That's nearly 10 times the value of the two biggest stablecoins, USDT and USDC, combined. Yet when it comes to transactions, the leaderboard is reversed. Less than 3% of those bitcoins change hands in a 24-hour period, compared to nearly 40% of the two stablecoins. The payments business is a big target for disruption. Visa (V.N), opens new tab and Mastercard (MA.N), opens new tab – the two largest processors of fiat currency payments – reported combined revenue of $74 billion last year and enjoy net profit margins of around 50%. That's quite a market at which to take aim. Moreover, stablecoin issuers collect interest on the collateral backing their digital coins as well as harvesting transaction processing fees. That's how Circle made a cool $1.7 billion in revenue last year. It's not hard to see why potential stablecoin issuers have been lining up for years. Nevertheless early projects flopped, notably Facebook owner Meta Platforms' (META.O), opens new tab ill-fated 2017 Libra stablecoin, opens new tab. That's because regulators and central bankers have not been nearly so keen. Three potential gremlins have been uppermost in their minds. The first is what would happen if stablecoins are not backed by sufficient high-quality, liquid collateral to make them redeemable at par on demand. A plague of pseudo-U.S. dollars would then circulate at varying discounts to the real greenback. That would undermine the so-called 'singleness of money, opens new tab' and destroy the co-ordinating role of the U.S. dollar as a unit of account. The regulators' second bugbear is the black economy. They fret that because stablecoins are effectively 'bearer securities', like physical banknotes, they are subject to know-your-customer and anti-money laundering rules only when their users seek to convert them into traditional bank deposits. In the meantime, they can be used to make payments anonymously just like physical cash. Finally, there is the risk that stablecoins erode the effectiveness of monetary policy. Physical greenbacks may be hard to track, but they are still issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve. A stablecoin issued by Amazon or Walmart might settle a macroeconomically significant volume of transactions between its customers and suppliers without ever formally touching the dollar. That could scramble the Fed's attempts to manage inflation by constraining liquidity. Yet none of these objections are new. Prudential risks are already a concern for money market funds and traditional banks. The anonymity of transactions is a feature of physical banknotes. The dilution of monetary policy is a familiar gripe of central bankers in emerging markets, where foreign currencies such as the dollar or euro often circulate alongside the national unit. What spooks regulators in the developed world is less the novelty of the risks than the frightening scale, scope, and speed which digitisation allows. That implies work-arounds can probably be found, especially if a unified clearing and settlement protocol connecting stablecoins to the traditional financial system, such as the ubyx, opens new tab concept announced this week, are adopted. Until this year, the caution of the regulators trumped the commercial interests of potential stablecoin issuers. What has helped to unblock the GENIUS Act is that the U.S. government believes it has spotted a fiscal benefit. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent set out, opens new tab his reasoning immediately after the Senate approved the act. 'A thriving stablecoin ecosystem will drive demand from the private sector for U.S. Treasuries, which back stablecoins,' he wrote: 'This newfound demand could lower government borrowing costs and help rein in the national debt.' What's more, he argued, stablecoins could 'onramp millions of new users – across the globe – to the dollar-based digital asset economy', effectively opening up a new frontier of overseas funding for the U.S. budget deficit. Bessent cited projections that the stablecoin market could top $3.7 trillion by 2030. That's certainly not small change. It would be more than sufficient to soak up the $3 trillion that nonpartisan experts reckon, opens new tab Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act will add to the national debt over the next 10 years. Unfortunately, things are not so simple. The Treasury already effectively enjoys free foreign financing via overseas demand for U.S. dollar banknotes. The Fed estimates, opens new tab that over $1 trillion of them currently circulate abroad. If dollar-backed stablecoins simply replace demand for physical notes, there will be no net fiscal benefit. Another niggle is that while purchases of stablecoins may help finance the national debt, the tokens could facilitate more payments that fly under the radar of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In 2022, the IRS estimated, opens new tab that nearly 12% of U.S. taxes go missing due to underreporting, implying a shortfall of around $600 billion in the most recent fiscal year. A surge in stablecoin usage could easily make that worse. Given the compelling commercial case and the likelihood that regulatory risks can be managed, it is ironic that the potential fiscal dividend that has finally convinced the U.S. government to bank on stablecoins is the shakiest rationale for embracing them. Follow @felixmwmartin, opens new tab on X
