Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • BumbleBee11
    • By BumbleBee11 17th Apr 17, 10:05 AM
    • 3Posts
    • 5Thanks
    BumbleBee11
    Partner Rent Disagreement
    • #1
    • 17th Apr 17, 10:05 AM
    Partner Rent Disagreement 17th Apr 17 at 10:05 AM
    New here, so apologies if wrong area.

    I own my own house and my partner and I are discussing him moving in with me. He currently lives with his family paying minimal rent per month. The issue is he said if he moves in he will happily pay half of all council tax, food and utility bills, but disagrees to pay half of the mortgage (which is just over £500pm). His reasoning for this is its my mortgage which is my loan on the house, why should he pay half of a mortgage when in years to come he still won't own any of the property. On the other hand he said if it was a rented property he would gladly pay half of that, but his issue with contributing towards the mortgage is that it's my house and therefore the mortgage should be up to me.

    I see where he's coming from, but I just can't get past the feeling that alongside utilities, some sort of rent should be paid for using/living in the property. Paying just a couple of hundred pounds a month for full use of it when I'm paying much more seems bizarre, even though I know long term I benefit because I own it.

    What are other people's thoughts on this?

    Thanks
Page 4
    • Poor_Single_lady
    • By Poor_Single_lady 18th Apr 17, 11:31 PM
    • 840 Posts
    • 2,979 Thanks
    Poor_Single_lady
    This thread is really sad. I have a mortgage just in my name and I would not be happy to have a boyfriend living here rent free.
    But neither would I be happy breaking up and having to pay money over. My parents paid my deposit so it would feel like a boy taking my parents money.

    It doesn't seem fair that if you want to stay in your house and live with your boyfriend you are potentially becoming someone's meal ticket.

    I would not let a boyfriend move in that didn't want to pay his way. He should at least want to! But it's not very romantic to draw up an agreement in case of break up. It feels like a situation with no winning side.
    2017- 5 credit cards plus loan
    Overdraft And 1 credit card paid off.

    2018 plans - reduce debt
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 19th Apr 17, 5:01 AM
    • 28,784 Posts
    • 17,216 Thanks
    getmore4less
    This thread is really sad. I have a mortgage just in my name and I would not be happy to have a boyfriend living here rent free.
    But neither would I be happy breaking up and having to pay money over. My parents paid my deposit so it would feel like a boy taking my parents money.

    It doesn't seem fair that if you want to stay in your house and live with your boyfriend you are potentially becoming someone's meal ticket.

    I would not let a boyfriend move in that didn't want to pay his way. He should at least want to! But it's not very romantic to draw up an agreement in case of break up. It feels like a situation with no winning side.
    Originally posted by Poor_Single_lady
    effectively all the agreement does is document your common ground from the discussions you should be having anyway about things like money.

    The real issue is many people don't talk about things have preconceived ideas based on different backgrounds and make assumptions that turn out to be different from the other persons when the crunch comes.

    if you can talk about it you can write it down, we are not talking a Sheldon room mate agreement but things like

    I put down 20% deposit , do I get that back first(interest free loan to the purchase) or do I own 20% of the property?

    (that's the easy one and many get that wrong in their agreements because they did not understand the difference)
    • justme111
    • By justme111 19th Apr 17, 8:17 AM
    • 2,618 Posts
    • 2,504 Thanks
    justme111
    . My parents paid my deposit so it would feel like a boy taking my parents money.
    .
    Originally posted by Poor_Single_lady
    I think you are over dramatising. Even if he was to ask for something from it and even if he went to court for it and then the court awarded him something (all not very realistic imo) it would not be part of your parents money. It would be part of equity increase corresponding to the years he lived there.
    I think verbal agreement would be upheld in the same way as written in case of dispute if you able to demonstrate that you behaved according to that agreement. So the risks are pretty remote and minor. Asking for a life completely without risks is irreasonable imo. He would also take risks that the house was not going to feel like a home to him and that he may be homeless on a whim. Getting close with someone is always a risk. That is why when we get close with someone it is a statement of their value to us. We prepared to accept the risk because we value that person and want to be with them. For some people who have subsidised life (council house or living with parents) it is even bigger risk...
    • PeacefulWaters
    • By PeacefulWaters 19th Apr 17, 10:18 AM
    • 6,399 Posts
    • 7,841 Thanks
    PeacefulWaters
    Get a simple agreement drawn (£200 solicitor bill?) up stating what he's paying for and confirming that he accrues no rights to the property.

    I'd also suggest you include maintenance (structure) which I see as your costs and maintenance (furnishings) which could be shared.

    Enjoy the sex.

    A friend of mine did this and they ended up married a few years later.
    • Gavin83
    • By Gavin83 19th Apr 17, 10:33 AM
    • 4,293 Posts
    • 6,700 Thanks
    Gavin83
    Because while they are together money is spent on common enjoyment they would not been able to afford otherwise, not her or his separate financial obligations. It would be divided only if they split.
    Originally posted by justme111
    Look, I've no issue with someone paying their way in a relationship and agree he should be contributing. However by accepting the contribution the OP has to accept that he'll have a beneficial interest in the property. If she doesn't want that to happen then don't ask for the money.

    She asked for a contribution towards the mortgage, I see no difference doing this than doing what your suggesting.

    Get a simple agreement drawn (£200 solicitor bill?) up stating what he's paying for and confirming that he accrues no rights to the property.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    What for? Either he's only paying for bills and a fair share of relationship related items, in which case he has no interest in the property or he's contributing more, in which case he does have an interest. You can't get a solicitor to draw up an agreement that says he's paying towards the mortgage but gains no interest in the property.
    • justme111
    • By justme111 19th Apr 17, 10:46 AM
    • 2,618 Posts
    • 2,504 Thanks
    justme111
    But she does not accept contributions. She goes on holidays paid by him. Or has a car paid for by him. Or they have a collection of expensive sex toys
    • Kynthia
    • By Kynthia 19th Apr 17, 11:57 AM
    • 4,899 Posts
    • 6,887 Thanks
    Kynthia
    People are still missing the fact there must have been a common intention at some point that the non-owning partner would obtain a share if the property. Without that there is no beneficial interest even if the partner pays half the mortgage directly to the lender for years.

    Much of the opinions expressed on this site regarding beneficial interest are scare stories without much accuracy. Everyone commenting should really read this link that explains it properly.
    https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/family/relationship-problems/relationship-breakdown-and-housing/if-you-live-with-your-partner-relationship-breakdown-and-housing/if-you-live-with-your-partner-and-you-own-your-home-relationship-breakdown-and-housing/relationship-breakdown-and-housing-beneficial-interest-if-your-partner-owns-the-home/
    Don't listen to me, I'm no expert!
    • pollyanna24
    • By pollyanna24 19th Apr 17, 12:02 PM
    • 3,634 Posts
    • 4,271 Thanks
    pollyanna24
    Put your house up for rent and take all the income from it yourself.

    Then rent a house with your boyfriend where he has to pay half the rent.
    Pink Sproglettes born 2008 and 2010
    House Worth (approx) - £383,000
    Mortgages (3rd May 2017) - £184,179.38
    Equity - £198,820.62
    • PeacefulWaters
    • By PeacefulWaters 19th Apr 17, 3:08 PM
    • 6,399 Posts
    • 7,841 Thanks
    PeacefulWaters
    What for?
    Originally posted by Gavin83
    To clarify what his contributions and rights are after a grown up discussion between them.

    Either he's only paying for bills and a fair share of relationship related items, in which case he has no interest in the property or he's contributing more, in which case he does have an interest.
    And a legal document can confirm this. Whichever way is agreed.

    You can't get a solicitor to draw up an agreement that says he's paying towards the mortgage but gains no interest in the property.
    While that isn't what I was suggesting, why not?
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 19th Apr 17, 4:16 PM
    • 28,784 Posts
    • 17,216 Thanks
    getmore4less
    People are still missing the fact there must have been a common intention at some point that the non-owning partner would obtain a share if the property. Without that there is no beneficial interest even if the partner pays half the mortgage directly to the lender for years.

    Much of the opinions expressed on this site regarding beneficial interest are scare stories without much accuracy. Everyone commenting should really read this link that explains it properly.
    short link
    Originally posted by Kynthia
    You need to read the implied trust wording more carefully.

    It says the opposite to what you are claiming.

    if contributions are made the owner would need the proof they were gifts or similar.

    edit : quote the relevant text
    A court can infer a common intention if financial contributions were made but nothing was said between you and your partner.

    The sole legal owner may argue that the contributions were made on a different basis, for example, as a loan or a gift, but they would need evidence of this.
    Last edited by getmore4less; 19-04-2017 at 7:14 PM. Reason: add the relevant section and shorten link
    • Poor_Single_lady
    • By Poor_Single_lady 19th Apr 17, 5:46 PM
    • 840 Posts
    • 2,979 Thanks
    Poor_Single_lady
    Sorry if I am "overdramatising" it's just quite an important subject to get clued up on. I had no idea about this so grateful for people explaining and pointing out how it would work.
    To be fair to me if I was being blas! about my parents money and not worrying about what could go wrong then this would be much worse than being worried or dramatic.
    I will bear this in mind for the future. Thank you to everyone explaining.
    2017- 5 credit cards plus loan
    Overdraft And 1 credit card paid off.

    2018 plans - reduce debt
    • Kynthia
    • By Kynthia 20th Apr 17, 6:28 PM
    • 4,899 Posts
    • 6,887 Thanks
    Kynthia
    You need to read the implied trust wording more carefully.

    It says the opposite to what you are claiming.

    if contributions are made the owner would need the proof they were gifts or similar.

    edit : quote the relevant text
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    You are misunderstanding implied trusts. It says for there to be one there has be a common intention for the non-owning partner to gain a share and direct contributions to the property. Both are requured. If there were direct contributions but the property owner tried to argue they were gifts without expectation of anything in return, in order to nullify that condition being met, then the owner would need to prove this.

    Contributions that aren't direct to the property don't count, so paying more than half the utilities, for holidays or into a savings account aren't direct contributions. The proof of joint intention or direct contributions doesn't need to be beyond reasonable doubt but whether a judge believes it's more probable than not.
    Last edited by Kynthia; 20-04-2017 at 6:31 PM.
    Don't listen to me, I'm no expert!
    • Kynthia
    • By Kynthia 20th Apr 17, 6:34 PM
    • 4,899 Posts
    • 6,887 Thanks
    Kynthia
    You need to read the implied trust wording more carefully.

    It says the opposite to what you are claiming.

    if contributions are made the owner would need the proof they were gifts or similar.

    edit : quote the relevant text
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    You are misunderstanding implied trusts. It says for there to be one there has be a common intention for the non-owning partner to gain a share and direct contributions to the property. If there were direct contributions but the property owner tried to argue they were gifts without expectation of anything in return, in order to nullify that condition, then the owner would need to prove this.

    Contributions that aren't direct to the property don't count. So unlike what people are saying here, paying more than half the utilities, for holidays or into a savings account aren't direct contributions and fine, and a cohabitation agreement stating there's no intention for the non-owner to gain a share is worth the paper its written on and would be proof tgere was no joint intention. The proof of joint intention or direct contributions doesn't need to be beyond reasonable doubt but whether a judge believes it's more probable than not.
    Last edited by Kynthia; 20-04-2017 at 6:39 PM.
    Don't listen to me, I'm no expert!
    • squirrelchops
    • By squirrelchops 30th Apr 17, 2:50 PM
    • 1,789 Posts
    • 2,868 Thanks
    squirrelchops
    My thinking goes wider than just the issue over the house.

    I agree that as it is the OPs mortgage and she has the financial investment that she should be responsible for paying the mortgage as ultimately she will be the one who will benefit from any increase in value etc.

    However, how, as a couple are other things being divvied up? Will it end up resentment if OP has to say to her partner 'I cant afford to go on holiday, go out, take this trip' etc due to having less disposable income? Will partner then end up subsidising partner?

    Also is the partner going to consciously save what would be his rent equivalent each month perhaps for deposit to a house together in the future. Otherwise he will become used to a certain amount of disposable income each month and if they do purchase a place together OP will be paying less than at present whilst partner is paying more than at the moment which is zero!

    I know it is tricky as OH and I have been in varients of this throughout the years due to changes in income, circumstances (eg me going back to Uni as a mature student) etc. The key is open dialogue and transparency.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,454Posts Today

8,345Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @Emloy93: @MartinSLewis I did this! It 100% works ????????

  • RT @Photo_Pete: @MartinSLewis Thanks Martin, I'll renew mine before my 24th in September!

  • Tell any 23 yr olds... you're allowed to buy a 3 year 16-25 railcard the day before your 24th birthday then it's valid until ur almost 27 RT

  • Follow Martin