My husband and I are improving our credit, but our scores are still just below 600. The banker offered us the option of lease-to-purchase. Our problem with that is the house needs two ceilings repaired, the furnace rewired, and the power to the attached garage should be cut because when it rains, the water leaks directly onto the wiring. A standard landlord would have to make these improvements before renting. He had originally offered the house on contract terms, but says our credit isn't good enough. So he offered the lease-to-purchase option. What is the real difference? He wants the down payment we had first agreed upon, the monthly rent, and improvements made. I don't want to do all that and risk losing the house. Again, who has to do those major improvements? Are we better off waiting 6 months and looking for another house? The only paperwork that we have is the purchase agreement which was signed when he accepted our offering price. Since he cannot finance us with the terms in the papers, we have the full right to get a release for our earnest money. We just wanted the house and this was the other option he gave us. I just don't want to put a couple of thousand dollars into repairs, plus the money down, plus rent and maybe end up with nothing to show for it in a year. I guess I'd feel better if he did repairs or we put less down up front.