Boyfriend dumped me after buying house

peachyprice

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

For us it is the case that the vast majority of us want to buy our own home and many of us also have always expected to do so. That's our way of life and not an "obsession" at all. Its just how we believe life is and what we want and it is our norm. A norm is just that, ie a "norm". I don't understand using the word "obsession" in this context.

I disagree with that entirely, many people in this country are forced to buy to provide a secure home for their family. Unless you are fortunate enough to be granted social housing there is no other alternative due to the shambles of laws that give tenants no protection to a secure future.

I, and probably millions of others, wouldn't give a damn if I bought my home of if I rented it if I knew it would be my home for as long as I wanted it, but living life knowing that you can be asked to leave with 8 weeks notice to uproot your family is no way to live.

It should be the 'norm' there should be realistic alternatives, which there is in most of the rest of Europe. The legacy of Maggie Thatcher lives on.

duchy

What's that got to do with the OP's situation ?

The current situation is that if you want security and not wonder every six months if the LL is going to renew then the options are social housing (hard to qualify for in many cases) or buy. Other European countries have very different laws about renting and therefore the cultural attitude to buying is entirely different- but the OP has made the decision that she wants to buy and has always wanted to. Her boyfriend grew up with a different mindset-possibly (as we don't know which country he is from).

The clincher for me is that he went along with viewings - knowing she was thinking of it as a home for both of them - and said nothing. Either he's a selfish git or as a couple they have communication issues on a massive scale-neither bode well for the future.

OP if you chose this house for you both......look around again - find a home that is YOUR first choice (and not on his doorstep). If you get back together later then a property chosen for you sets the tone for your future relationship - and if you don't get back together you don't have a home tainted by the break up.

peachyprice wrote: »

I disagree with that entirely, many people in this country are forced to buy to provide a secure home for their family. Unless you are fortunate enough to be granted social housing there is no other alternative due to the shambles of laws that give tenants no protection to a secure future.

I, and probably millions of others, wouldn't give a damn if I bought my home of if I rented it if I knew it would be my home for as long as I wanted it, but living life knowing that you can be asked to leave with 8 weeks notice to uproot your family is no way to live.

It should be the 'norm' there should be realistic alternatives, which there is in most of the rest of Europe. The legacy of Maggie Thatcher lives on.

moneyistooshorttomention

Well, you've given a very good reason why many of us also HAVE to buy our own home if we possibly can, ie that lack of security of tenure.

I do feel sorry for tenants these days, with the zilch security level that most now have. Back when I rented (as a young adult) we had pretty cast-iron security levels of tenure but many of us (including me) still wanted to know that our home was our own and we could feel 100% secure in it (bar the unlikely event of compulsory purchase by the local Council) and do what we pleased with it and make it reflect our own personal tastes and that, once we had paid off the mortgage, we had no risk whatsoever of losing it (whatever happened to our job/career). There is a peace of mind financially that can only be obtained by those who have (or at least know they will have at some point) lower income needs than if they have to rent permanently. With that comes not having to be nearly so worried about what employers might do regarding refusing you a job/cutting your salary/etc.

So, we all need our own homes and whether we actively "want" it or no maybe depends on what we have seen as we grew up. If people have been used to seeing their parents/friends live in rented accommodation maybe there isn't the "wish" to own home of your own. Maybe that "wish" is only there if you have grown up knowing that darn nearly everyone you know owns their own home and thus have a "wish" (as well as a need to). You've set me off going down Memory Lane now:rotfl:, as I'm trying to recall if anyone I knew rented and can only think of one friend so far (whilst I was growing up) whose parents did so. I think absolutely everyone else I knew in any context owned their own homes (or their parents did, if they hadn't yet reached adulthood). In those circumstances, then I would guess pretty much anyone who had been brought up with that as a norm would "want" their own home, as well as "need" it.

C_Mababejive

Havent read all the responses but it puts me in mind of a joke i once heard at a wedding reception along the lines of warning guys about marriage as at church,all the signs are there...aisle,altar,hymn...

What i see here is a female with a clear agenda and a plan all mapped out,and a guy who is just toddling along and doesnt really have a plan who has now been forced to focus and like a recalcitrant bull, doesnt want to be dragged around.

Never mix business with pleasure.

I think this relationship is all but over.

Why should the guy move into someone elses house where he will be a mere lodger building up no equity,no sense of ownership and could be booted out at anytime?

He who pays the piper calls the tune. He would forever be in thrall to the homeowner for fear of being booted out!

I think the op needs to end it and find someone else with the same agenda as hers.

Tigsteroonie

I don't think he'd move in anyway - he never visited her flat by all accounts, and doesn't want to be parted from his precious games consoles! She's done all the chasing ...

Anoneemoose

Treevo wrote: »

Wasn't able? Where do you get that idea from? He earns much less than her but was paying all of the rent and bills in the place they both lived. She wasn't able to pay her way but could afford to save a massive house deposit?

But OP was paying rent on her own place too - a place where her boyfriend wouldn't stay. Maybe if he had agreed to stay there 50% (or similar) of the time, then this wouldn't be an issue.

Obviously we can only take things at face value as to what OP has said but it does seem like everything was on the bf's terms, in respect of where they stayed. Why should OP not continue to save for a house? She has already said she would pay 25% of the rent, as well as her own and based on what we know, I don't think that's unreasonable at all.

I'm no expert but I think a lot of this is down to simple misunderstanding, maybe through lack of communication. They seem to both have reached a position of 'not knowing where they stand' with each other.

I wish OP luck. I hope you find happiness soon.

FBaby

But he didn't want to stay there and why would he when the place was clearly not as comfortable as is.

The way I see it is very much the way it usually happens between two professional and independent people. You start dating and gradually you start spending more time together at one place or the other. Then you decide that one place is more convenient, comfortable, etc... so that becomes the main place (saving constant taking things from place to the other). The other keeps the place for sometimes, just in case the relationship doesn't flourish. Then after some time of this arrangement comes the -or another-end of the tenancy and the agreement that it is a waste of money to be paying for two places and make sense to give one up to save for whatever money could be saved for. It goes from there.

It sounds to me that this is how HE saw things, however, OP clearly didn't. She came up with laughable excuses for not doing so, which must have been enough of a slap for him, but then announces that she has saved enough money to go and buy her own place, which must have come as a double slap.

OP thought she could have her cake and eat it, the partner she loved along with the security of being in full control of their financial future. A man in his mid-30s who must have thought they were about to move to the next stage of their relationship based on sharing, trust and equity would have been a fool not to run away at this stage.

Tigsteroonie

FBaby wrote: »

A man in his mid-30s who must have thought they were about to move to the next stage of their relationship based on sharing, trust and equity would have been a fool not to run away at this stage.

Well, one thing's for certain. Though we may not agree as to whether the OP or her boyfriend were in the right, we all seem to agree that it was the best thing for the relationship to end

peachyprice

duchy wrote: »

What's that got to do with the OP's situation ?

Quite a lot, as this house buying just to be able to provide a stable roof over your head malarky is just as unlikely to be 'the norm' in his country as it is 'the norm' here.

burnoutbabe

someone refusing to come to your place is just childish. It had one assumes a bed,aofa, bathroom, tv etc, so would be fine for a stayover and mean that the OP is not constantly shlepping her stuff between 2 flats.

And yes, when the next rent review came up, why did no one discuss moving in together officially then. Surely it came up in 3 1/2 years?

I'd not pay 50% of his rent plus mine, unless we both paid 50% of the whole. But then we'd have then discussed at that stage, what next, bigger flat for us both? marriage? not discussing it when it came up seems very odd, at least then he'd know it had to be marriage and I'd know he didn't want marriage so i could move on or decide to live with him regardless.