question:- I'm mortgage free. should my girlfriend pay me rent ?

Maddie57

Have you considered buying a property together? You mentioned her wage was something like 3x more than yours (I think). You could put the money you make from selling your house into a high interest account/shares/whatever and either pay your half cash or pay half a mortgage each month.

I wouldn't want to pay rent if I was living with someone but I would want to make a contribution so it was my home too. There nowt worse than the 'It's my house' arguements to make you want to pack your bags.

moggylover

aliasojo wrote: »

I'm either just too old now or living in another world entirely but I always thought that loving someone and being in a serious relationship with them, meant you wanted the best for them and were happy to help and support them whenever you could. Being in the fortunate position of having a paid for roof over your head means you could easily do this with no cost to yourself but instead you choose to charge anyway.

I think that's disgusting tbh, this is supposed to be the person you love, not just a flatmate.

I think all other outgoings and bills should be split but if there isn't a bill there in the first place (i.e. no mortgage or rent payment required) then it's mean to still want to charge it.

Well said!

Op: I think you should give up on women and take your bank statements to bed with you;)

moggylover

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

I have a lodger, he contributes financially to my house and theres no contract or anything drawn up because I know him and hes a friend. When he leaves he has no claim on my house despite contributing towards the mortgage.

I'm not in a relationship with the lodger, but why would that make a difference?

(Obviously Im discounting a marriage)

Because you are sharing on a "lodger" basis and not cohabiting. A cohabiting situation brings about some of the protection that a marriage does (although not all) and the cohabitee can expect consideration given to amounts that she/he puts in to the maintenance and upkeep of the actual house (not just bills for day to day costs) if she/he can prove them.

mrstinchcombe

moggylover wrote: »

Because you are sharing on a "lodger" basis and not cohabiting. A cohabiting situation brings about some of the protection that a marriage does (although not all) and the cohabitee can expect consideration given to amounts that she/he puts in to the maintenance and upkeep of the actual house (not just bills for day to day costs) if she/he can prove them.

So would a "partner" be different from a "!!!! buddy"?

Burlesque_Babe

justwondering25 wrote: »

I hope she would understand that in todays modern legal enviroment it might be best to sign up on a deal that clearly states what is hers is hers and what is mean is mean ,

I think this statement (along with the Freudian slip at the end) sums it all up. I feel you are likening your relationship to a business arrangement with a bit of 'that's not fair, why should I share' thrown in. you have the best of many worlds. You are in a secure position with your own property, fully paid for. You are in a stable relationship with someone who loves you. Charging the person who (should by rights) be the most important person in your life rent is reducing your relationship to one akin to landlord and lodger. Yes you've worked hard and paid off your house. Why should she be having to pay you for that privilege? If and when you both live in a house as a couple 7 days a week, then split the bills 50/50. If there is upkeep to the house, again you split it.

Charging someone rent when there is no actual need is going to cause a wedge between you before long.

DarkConvict

rugbymum wrote: »

What a wonderful, gentlemanly chap you are!
RENT????
Bills....50/50 split YES.
Chores 50/50 YES.
But rent????
I know you worked hard to pay off your mortgage etc, but this sounds a bit mercenary, if you think I'm being harsh, let me explain.
I was involved with a guy, I earned twice his salary and had my own house (+ 3 kids).
I expected him to pay helf the bills & do half the chores, but I didn't expect him to pay rent. The house was MINE and I didn't want him to be able to go to a solicitor at a later stage (if it went pear shape) & say that he contributed to the house so had a stake in it. Be VERY careful.

But using that argument, every flat i have rented, am i entitled a claim to it when they are sold? No.
I understand your concern, but they are paying rent not mortgage so have no claim to stake against it.

Burlesque_Babe

moggylover wrote: »

A cohabiting situation brings about some of the protection that a marriage does (although not all) and the cohabitee can expect consideration given to amounts that she/he puts in to the maintenance and upkeep of the actual house (not just bills for day to day costs) if she/he can prove them.

there's very little protection for anyone on a co-habiting couple. There have been myths for years about if you're together for more than x years you are seen as 'married' and get rights which aren't true. It needs to be either both people named on a mortgage, or a court case to prove that the non-named person has contributed significantly to the mortgage and then for a judge to decide.

moggylover

mrstinchcombe wrote: »

So would a "partner" be different from a "!!!! buddy"?

I think it depends just how the "relationship" is construed by the parties involved, tbh. I think the law sort of thinks that if two people are living together as if married, then certain rights acrue.

For instance, when it comes to benefits, you get the same treatment whether "living together" within marriage or outside of marriage, so would be expected to "support" your partner should they need you to. Things like income would be considered as joint.

A lodger with "benefits" would probably be able to claim that they had some expectation of a "relationship" from the situation. My own attitude to lodgers was that I never f*cked with my finances at stake;) That way the situation was never going to arise:D

Personally think that it is a whole different situation being talked about here (or I think the ops girlfriend felt that it was originally) and I find it incomprehensible that someone would be quite as tight @rsed as the op appears to be with someone he loved:D

moggylover

Burlesque_Babe wrote: »

there's very little protection for anyone on a co-habiting couple. There have been myths for years about if you're together for more than x years you are seen as 'married' and get rights which aren't true. It needs to be either both people named on a mortgage, or a court case to prove that the non-named person has contributed significantly to the mortgage and then for a judge to decide.

But judges do, and have, often found in favour of the cohabitee where they have contributed significantly: and quite rightly as well in many of those cases.

Unlikely if it is a short term relationship with no off-spring: much more likely if long term or where kids are involved: but even homosexual relationships have had courts find the partner to be entitled to a share of the joint home.

tallyhoh

How about she buys half the house?

If you have children & you still expect 50/50 the partner staying home should expect "wages" for taking care of the children & for giving up their income.

Check out going rates for nannies.