Charging rent for 21 year old

Timmne

Sorry if this has been said before but why should a child who's working full time pay any less than their share of every bill? If there are 3 people in the house, they should pay a third of all the bills. That way they'll develop an interest in keeping bills down and gain the knowledge of how to run a house.

My 21 year old brother in law pays £100 per month and earns about £450 per month - he thinks this is a lot but won't increase his job past part time as he doesn't need to!

I didn't pay board at all (this looks like I'm a hypocrite, but hear me out!) on the basis that I would save the money to move out - I saved for four months into the free board period and put a deposit down on a flat and 8 months later I moved out. Once you have a flat purchase looming you can't do anything but save!

My brother's 24 and pays £200 per month board at my parents' house and this barely covers the council tax! He doesn't get the fair share policy either.

Timmne

A couple more points!....

If the child has a (say) £150 board bill to cover they may do what my brother in law does and work to suit, i.e. earn £100 more than they pay in board just to cover their (notice the singular...) bill.

Also, if they have a 1/3 of the house's bills which are likely to be £500 in the average house, they may resent paying it and move out earlier, a blessing in disguise for all concerned!! :T

becky004

liney wrote: »

I would not charge a child in full time education board whether they are working or not. Neither would i charge a child doing a YTS, as i would rather they finished their training, and got a good job, then quit to earn more money immediatley doing manual work just because i was taking a chunk of their small wage.

When I was on a YTS earning £25.25 a week (1985!), my mother took £15 and I had to pay my £5 a week bus fares out of the remainder :eek:

Frugal_Fox

Just another view. When I had my first job I wasn't earning very much. My parents were comfortable and did not charge me any 'keep'. I bought my own clothes, shoes and toiletries from the age of 14. I also paid for most of my driving lessons and bought, taxed and insured my first car. This may have led my parents to believe I might be frugal with my money. Not so - as signature will show!

When our children (we have two) are older we intend to ask them for 'rather a lot' of housekeeping - and not to keep me in the life I would like to become accustomed to! I felt woefully unprepared when we bought our first house by the amount of money just taken up in household bills let alone the niceities. For this reason we intend to 'charge' our children 40% of their take home pay as 'housekeeping'. We intend to 'strongly encourage' them to save a further 20%, leaving them 40% to spend on frivolities. Out of the 40% that we will retain we will invest/save half of it for them for when they need a deposit for a property etc. It might seem harsh, but I want our children to be fully aware of the costs of a home so that they don't make as many mistakes as we did... and are still repaying! I don't want to profit from our children, I just want them to be more financially aware than I was.

Timmne

Frugal_Fox wrote: »

Just another view. When I had my first job I wasn't earning very much. My parents were comfortable and did not charge me any 'keep'. I bought my own clothes, shoes and toiletries from the age of 14. I also paid for most of my driving lessons and bought, taxed and insured my first car. This may have led my parents to believe I might be frugal with my money. Not so - as signature will show!

When our children (we have two) are older we intend to ask them for 'rather a lot' of housekeeping - and not to keep me in the life I would like to become accustomed to! I felt woefully unprepared when we bought our first house by the amount of money just taken up in household bills let alone the niceities. For this reason we intend to 'charge' our children 40% of their take home pay as 'housekeeping'. We intend to 'strongly encourage' them to save a further 20%, leaving them 40% to spend on frivolities. Out of the 40% that we will retain we will invest/save half of it for them for when they need a deposit for a property etc. It might seem harsh, but I want our children to be fully aware of the costs of a home so that they don't make as many mistakes as we did... and are still repaying! I don't want to profit from our children, I just want them to be more financially aware than I was.

I don't think this is harsh, I think it's absolutely reasonable!

Just think - if you have a net pay of say £1000 per month and you had 40% of it left after paying all your bills then it would be like you'd won the lottery! It's approximately £80 per week so I can't see that anyone living at their parents could argue it was unfair!

I wish I had 40% left

arthur_dent_2

When I was younger and still at home, I paid my parents £45 quid a week. This was about a third of my income. On top of this I used to top up the shopping and a further third of my income went to a pension and savings.

I am sorry if this offends, but I hate to hear of these young men and women who feel hard done by because they have to pay a little bit of their wages out to their parents. In my opinion any less than about £50 a week on a normal wage (minimum wage is quite enough to cover that amount) is taking the mickey out of mum and dad. If they are lucky enough to be on a decent wage then it should be a lot more.

Nenen

Jays wrote: »

Hi

If a son/daughter pays rent does that mean they are entitled to a rent book?

What legal position would the parents be in if they decide to sell their house and move whilst a son or daughter pays rent?

Last time we moved I remember being asked how old our children where, and the implication was if our eldest son was over 18 he would have to consent to the move.

If a son or daughter was paying rent but the family 'fall out' and the parents wanted the son/daughter to move out, how would they stand legally?

Just wondered if anyone had encountered these problems, or knew the answers. We aren't in any of these situations ourselves.

Jays

Jays, I'm no legal expert but I don't think that there would be any legal implications for children paying their parents a weekly/monthly amount as I don't think what is being discussed here could be considered 'rent'. My ds calls it his 'keep' (i.e. a contribution towards housekeeping costs). It is not usually an amount to pay towards rent/mortgage repayments on the property but a contribution to the cost of food, washing, utilities etc. If you were renting a room to someone other than your child you would probably be charging an awful lot more and should be making a profit! As it is, it is rare for a child to even pay all of his/her costs.
When we moved recently we had 2 children over 18 living with us (albeit away at uni at the time) and our solicitor said that they basically had to agree to the move so that there would be no question of 'squatters rights' upon completion. Even if they pay 'keep' they do not become joint owners of the property.

Mum_3

When I first started working my parents asked that I pay one third of my wage in rent, one third to spend and one third to save. I paid them one third and ended up spending the other two thirds.

I currently take home around £1,000 and my outgoings - rent, bills, csa, food, car maintenance, petrol etc takes about 90%.

chickalittle

My lad has just started to pay a contribution to his upkeep - the one thing I wasn't sure about is when he's away through work or on holiday. I was thinking of not taking his money on those weeks - although I know if he lived in a flat etc he would still have to pay regardless. He is only young and I want to be fair - what do other people do?
His contribution is towards his general upkeep which includes food which I wouldn't have to spend when he's not here.

Timmne

Take it off him! He needs to learn that things cost even when he's not using them when it comes to owning a house...

My guess is as you say that he pays towards his upkeep he doesn't pay a lot? I also guess that the cost of him not being there won't be that affected by him not using them....

Stop being nice to him - become a monster parent! (cruel to be kind though)