Ethics: I want to buy soon, girlfriend unwilling

antrobus

I now understand the difference between men and women.

If a man wants to know what to do about living with a girlfriend in a property that he owns; he posts the question on the 'House Buying, Renting & Selling' board.

If a woman wants to know what to do about living with a boyfriend in a property that she owns; she posts the question on the 'Marriage, Couples & Family MoneySaving' board.

seven-day-weekend

Hooloovoo wrote: »

He needs to be careful there. If it appears that she is contributing to the mortgage (and from what you have described, it does) then she will have a claim on the flat regardless of whos name is on the accounts.

Thanks, maybe I will suggest the mortgage goes from a different account.

seven-day-weekend

InMyDreams wrote: »

And so she has and should! It's all very nice saying that she's paying less than she would be renting by herself, but he's also paying considerable less than he would if he was living alone.

If they split, she walks away with nothing but the fact she's paid a little less rent over the last x years. He walks away with both having paid less over the same time-frame *and* all the equity she's pumped into the house for him. He's really got his cake and eating it there. She is a fool (unless she can claim some equity back too).

So, she would have to pay wherever she lived, she paid the same amount when she was a lodger. She would pay the same as HIS lodger! Or he could chuck her out and have another lodger and charge them the same. So are you saying anybody who puts anything into living in a property should have equity in it? I shall tell my son to pay his mortgage from a separate account.

propertyman

antrobus wrote: »

I now understand the difference between men and women.

If a man wants to know what to do about living with a girlfriend in a property that he owns; he posts the question on the 'House Buying, Renting & Selling' board.

If a woman wants to know what to do about living with a boyfriend in a property that she owns; she posts the question on the 'Marriage, Couples & Family MoneySaving' board.

I disagree; most men think about the problem and do something.

It's women that want to talk about it endlessly and share their feelings . We just have to go along with them until they are ready, because we love them. :rotfl:

The answer is in why you and as a couple want to do anything, buying renting and sharing is how you achieve that, not as posted, the other way around.

Werdnal

When I first moved in with my partner (now my hubby), he had his own house. He paid the mortgage, I paid the utilities and we split the shopping bills 50/50!

OP, I think you need to sit down and talk this through with your gf, not a bunch of total strangers on an internet forum. I would suggest perhaps you rent for 6/12 months together and see how the relationship works out and whether you both want the same things long-term. Don't let your wish to rush out and buy, if she is not commited yet, come between you, otherwise you will end up resenting each other and it will never work! There are far more important things in life - enjoy your relationship, have fun together and worry about buying a house when you know its going to last ... !

InMyDreams

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

So, she would have to pay wherever she lived,

So would he!

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

she paid the same amount when she was a lodger. She would pay the same as HIS lodger!

Charming. If he has a spare room for a lodger, presumably he still does. If she is preventing him getting a lodger, then fair enough, but would he really want a lodger in there too? Is it really the case that he *wants* a lodger in there too, to help with the mortgage and she's refusing? In which case, sure, if she's the one putting her foot down, then only fair she should recompense him what he's missing out on I suppose. Otherwise, I don't think your argument is logical and he's having his cake and eating it.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

So are you saying anybody who puts anything into living in a property should have equity in it?

Well, yes, which is why I think it would be far better *not* to put anything into the property and keep finances separate at this stage. Clearly tenants and lodgers are a different issue, but really, if you can't see the difference, then I pity you, your son and his girlfriend. A partner shouldn't be seen as a cash cow.

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I shall tell my son to pay his mortgage from a separate account.

What a wonderful basis for a long term relationship. :-/

Errata

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

So, she would have to pay wherever she lived, she paid the same amount when she was a lodger. She would pay the same as HIS lodger! Or he could chuck her out and have another lodger and charge them the same. So are you saying anybody who puts anything into living in a property should have equity in it? I shall tell my son to pay his mortgage from a separate account.

I think much depends on the relationship. If they're simply shacking up together then it's pretty much a business arrangement, if they believe they're in a forever relationship than everything belongs to both.
There are a great many variables, but the one that has primarcy in a healthy relationship is trust.

Vincent.waldorf

InMyDreams wrote: »

So would he!



Charming. If he has a spare room for a lodger, presumably he still does. If she is preventing him getting a lodger, then fair enough, but would he really want a lodger in there too? Is it really the case that he *wants* a lodger in there too, to help with the mortgage and she's refusing? In which case, sure, if she's the one putting her foot down, then only fair she should recompense him what he's missing out on I suppose. Otherwise, I don't think your argument is logical and he's having his cake and eating it.



Well, yes, which is why I think it would be far better *not* to put anything into the property and keep finances separate at this stage. Clearly tenants and lodgers are a different issue, but really, if you can't see the difference, then I pity you, your son and his girlfriend. A partner shouldn't be seen as a cash cow.



What a wonderful basis for a long term relationship. :-/

The different between him and her is that he is putting his own deposit and is up to his eyes in debt with a mortgage, she can walk away if she "gets bored" he is also taking on equity risk. if house prices go down then he will be at a loss, she will be the same. If he cant pay the mortgage do you think the GF would step in and use all her salary to pay it even if they are in "love"?
The part about a lodger is theorhetical, assuming he isnt struggling. the point is that if she did not live with him she would have to pay to live somewhere ragardless. he has probably worked out that paying rent greater than mortgage payments is silly and decided to buy!!!

InMyDreams

Errata wrote: »

If they're simply shacking up together then it's pretty much a business arrangement

And there's the problem... mixing business and pleasure. If the relationship fails... is the home-owner going to be seeking another 'business partner' on the same arrangement to keep the money coming in.

If what the home owner wants is help with paying *his/her* debt on *his/her* house, then he/she should get in a genuine lodger, whether or not a partner is sharing his/her room.

InMyDreams

vincent.waldorf wrote: »

The different between him and her is that he is putting his own deposit and is up to his eyes in debt with a mortgage, she can walk away if she "gets bored" he is also taking on equity risk. if house prices go down then he will be at a loss, she will be the same. If he cant pay the mortgage do you think the GF would step in and use all her salary to pay it even if they are in "love"?
The part about a lodger is theorhetical, assuming he isnt struggling. the point is that if she did not live with him she would have to pay to live somewhere ragardless. he has probably worked out that paying rent greater than mortgage payments is silly and decided to buy!!!

Agree with all the above. But in that case, maybe he wasn't really in a position to be taking such huge risks either. Why should she suffer because of his over-risky financial decisions? Of course if they end up together, she will anyway.

But it goes both ways. If prices go up, will he feel more generous and give her a chunk if they split? Of course if they end up together, she'll get it anyway.

So yes, if house prices go up, there is financial incentive for partner to stay, if house prices go down, there is financial incentive for partner to run.

Presumably she never asked him to buy the house. Whilst solely in his name, it's solely his risk and responsibility.