Girlfriend moving into owned flat - Legal Implications?

marathonic

WellKnownSid wrote: »

When my girlfriend moved in with me, I just told her to stick the rent money into an ISA. A rainy day fund.

I like this idea.

If you split up after a couple of years, you can be guilt free because she has much more savings than she would have had otherwise - potentially enough for a deposit for her own place.

If you don't split up, you end up getting married and having a huge amount of savings to pay down your own mortgage.

zzzLazyDaisy

InMyDreams wrote: »

As it happens, since I posted my original posts, the OP has come back to clarify that if the gf was not moving in, then he would be considering getting a lodger instead. This is the only thing that potentially does make a difference (as I said in my first post) because now the gf moving in, it could be argued, is actually costing him the potential income a lodger might provide. In which case fair enough, come to some arrangement. But it does seem somewhat convenient that he hasn't got in a lodger yet, after being there for over a year, and now at the point of moving his gf in, he's now considering it.

Ironically, it is exactly this that makes him more vulnerable to her acquiring equity in the property, because on his own admission he *needs* the extra money to pay the mortgage.

Before any raises the point - the law makes a distinction between a cohabiting partner and a lodger.

InMyDreams

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Ironically, it is exactly this that makes him more vulnerable to her acquiring equity in the property, because on his own admission he *needs* the extra money to pay the mortgage.

Before any raises the point - the law makes a distinction between a cohabiting partner and a lodger.

Which actually makes sense to me (as a non-lawyer) from a moral standpoint too.

I would say that either he can afford for the flat to be 100% his, in which case by all means let her live there (but don't charge her over and above a share in groceries and utilities). Or he can't, in which case either get a lodger in or let her contribute to the equity.

I do see that it's a bit grey though, if she doesn't actually want to contribute to the equity or share the risk/responsibility, and would prefer to just pay him as a 'lodger' and they are both happy with that set-up.