Cohabitation and assets

Odette

Ok well this kinda makes it more difficult, I had assumed you were my age (mid - twenties) but it doesnt really matter.
Some more questions, Have you discussed and agreed that you should both move to YOUR house? Is the relationship at a stage were you want to, or would feel comfortable with working with both your 'assets' (ie. houses) for the best result for both or is it more like hes a bf and you are testing the water for the future?
I dont mean to say anything about your relationship but I think the answer to both is quite distinctive and different. At the end of the day if its more of a bf thing then if it was me I would figure out how much it would cost me to lose my lodger but 'get by' as in, not make a profit, and charge my bf that if he agrees. However thats my opinion at the end of the day, if you feel this relationship will get more serious in the future then this will be the first of many conversations of this nature, sit down with a bottle of wine and work it out so you are both happy. :A

Gigglepig

I don't think anyone is suggesting that he should live rent free...

Is the rental yield on the two houses approximately the same? If so, move into one of them together and split the rent from the other house 50-50?

Is it an option that you move into his house and let the whole of yours?

Anyway, how does your partner think that you should resolve this? Has he suggested a particular contribution?

bundly

Gigglepig wrote: »

if you are preoccupied or resentful in any way regarding the "loss" of 80pw that you could have charged a "lodger" rather than the prospect of a shared life together, is that the frame of mind you want to be in before living together?

Hi Giggle

It's not a "loss" of 80pw, it's a loss (without inverted commas) of 80pw. And losing it reduces my guaranteed income to 80pw (from the other lodger). I earn 70pw from other sources but that is not guaranteed.

In other words, if I have my b/f move in and not pay me anything, my income would drop from 230pw to 150pw. That really isn't very much when the outgoings total 100pw. I would have just 50pw to live on. My boyfriend would get the income from letting his house AND his pension, totalling about 300pw.

I dont know if it is right that, if the man has 300pw coming in and the woman only 230pw, she should lose a further 80pw of that for the pleasure of his company.

bundly

Odette asked

"Have you discussed and agreed that you should both move to YOUR house?"

He wants to move the 100 miles to my town. My house is fine by both of us, don't want us both to have the upheaval and stress of moving house.

"Is the relationship at a stage were you want to, or would feel comfortable with working with both your 'assets' (ie. houses) for the best result for both or is it more like hes a bf and you are testing the water for the future?"

I want to keep assets as separate as possible as I have seen a hundred times the strife and hell mixing them up together causes when a couple breaks up.

"At the end of the day if its more of a bf thing then if it was me I would figure out how much it would cost me to lose my lodger but 'get by' as in, not make a profit, and charge my bf that if he agrees."

Thanks for your opinion!

B.

bundly

Thank you Gigglepig. You asked

"Is the rental yield on the two houses approximately the same?"

Yes. His is smaller but in an expensive location. Mine is huge but in a cheaper area.

"If so, move into one of them together and split the rent from the other house 50-50?"

Have to be moving into my house. The rent from his would be about £150pw, meaning he would give me £75pw. But if the house was untenanted for a while then I would lose that £75pw, but he'd continue living rent free in my house.

"Is it an option that you move into his house and let the whole of yours?"

No.

"Anyway, how does your partner think that you should resolve this? Has he suggested a particular contribution?"

He said he wants to move to my town. Is happy moving into my house as it's huge and near the sea. He is waiting for me to decide on the arrangements and finances. I want to make the financial decision without any input from him because my first duty is to protect myself and my assets.

B

cte1111

I think you should be talking to your partner about it, rather than us. I can understand that you want to protect your asset.

It sounds to me that what you think is fair is for your partner to contribute £80 per week. Doesn't sound unreasonable. However you also need to think about other bills, e.g. food, household bits and pieces, furniture, etc. Perhaps you could have a separate account for these, e.g. each put in half of what you estimate these things to cost.

bundly

cte1111 wrote: »

I think you should be talking to your partner about it, rather than us. I can understand that you want to protect your asset.

It sounds to me that what you think is fair is for your partner to contribute £80 per week. Doesn't sound unreasonable. However you also need to think about other bills, e.g. food, household bits and pieces, furniture, etc. Perhaps you could have a separate account for these, e.g. each put in half of what you estimate these things to cost.

I really want to make all these decisions myself, for myself, without his input. He isn't my partner yet... it just makes sense for him to move in here as he has nothing to keep him in his town now he has retired from work, and driving 100 miles each way every time we meet up is silly and wasteful.

I don't know if £80pw is fair. It's just that is the amount I will lose by him lving here. Should he compensate me all of that, part of that, none of that? £60? £40? £20? If he didn't know me, but chose to sell or let his house and come to live here by the sea he'd have to pay rent to somebody and if it was in a houseshare it would be about £80pw. I am not sure if he should get a "free ride" at my expense especially when his income and assets exceed mine already, plus I will be losing even more in order to accommodate him.

Yes I DO want to be romantic but I also don't want to be taken for a ride.

We've all seen the painful threads on here and elsewhere, the aftermath of breakups in which the injured party went in with romance and love holding sway then got taken to the cleaners a couple of years down the line. They come asking for advice and people always reply "You should have let your head rule your heart when setting up financial matters".

Dunroamin

It seems really simple to me.

Apart from actually living with you, your BF wants/needs a room as an office and personal space so I don't see why he shouldn't pay the rent on this. If he didn't need this extra space you could keep both lodgers and he could share a bedroom and communal rooms with you.

It's not the cohabiting he'd be paying for but the rent of this extra space.

bundly

Dunroamin wrote: »

It seems really simple to me.

Apart from actually living with you, your BF wants/needs a room as an office and personal space so I don't see why he shouldn't pay the rent on this. If he didn't need this extra space you could keep both lodgers and he could share a bedroom and communal rooms with you.

It's not the cohabiting he'd be paying for but the rent of this extra space.

I see where you are coming from Dunroamin. Indeed, if I could keep both lodgers I would not lose 1/3 of my income in order to have him here. he would be compensating me for my lack of earnings caused by him.

A good, clear-cut way of looking at it, thank you.

I suppose an analogy would be, if a friend wanted another friend to take a day off work, unpaid, in order to work for her, she'd expect the day's loss of pay to be recompensed. These lodgers are my "job".

Odette

I wish you luck whatever you decide