We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Splitting the bills!
Comments
-
Your situation is different as you clearly don't have a mortgage to pay. Even though it's your house, it would be reasonable to expect your partner to contribute towards any repairs.
Why? A lodger renting a room from me wouldn't be expected to contribute to repairs.
I agree that in principle they should pay rent.With a mortgage to pay, I don't think asking them to pay rent is such a bad idea.
Paying other bills can be 'rent by a different name' if you like but it certainly simplifies matters.
Whether or not you choose to treat your husband/wife as a lodger is a different matter. Also whether they would still be your husband/wife after you have made such a decision.
Where I disagree is in it simplifying matters. I think it does the exact opposite, as zzzLazyDaisy said.
And paying "rent that is not called rent" is the worst possible of all options, since in a nasty breakup they can attempt to demonstrate that they weren't paying rent at all and were in fact contributing to the house and therefore attempting to claim a beneficial interest in the property. Whether such a claim would succeed or not isn't the issue, I'd just rather not leave myself open to the case at all.0 -
Why? A lodger renting a room from me wouldn't be expected to contribute to repairs.
Because you live there, together, as partners.
In fact you just said in your previous post that he's your partner, not a lodger, and now you're comparing him to a lodger
Why should you pay everything just because it's your house? He's living there rent free, so the least he can do is contribute towards any repairs! You're doing yourself a disservice if you pay for everything like that.I agree that in principle they should pay rent.
Where I disagree is in it simplifying matters. I think it does the exact opposite, as zzzLazyDaisy said.
And paying "rent that is not called rent" is the worse possible of all options, since in a nasty breakup they can attempt to demonstrate that they weren't paying rent at all and were in fact contributing to the house and therefore attempting to claim a beneficial interest in the property. Whether such a claim would succeed or not isn't the issue, I'd just rather not leave myself open to the case at all.
When you say 'contributing to the house' do you mean contributing towards the running of the house or contributing towards the house itself?
If the latter, then it would be very easy to demonstrate that they did not in fact contribute anything towards the house.
If the former, then I get your point. I have no idea whether paying bills would allow someone to make a claim in the property; it's something I hadn't even considered. If that's the case, then I agree it wouldn't be sensible.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
When you say 'contributing to the house' do you mean contributing towards the running of the house or contributing towards the house itself?
It could be seen as either.
They gave money towards the house. Whether the owner spent it on the bills or repairs doesn't matter.
Without going to the hassle of setting up a legally binding rental/lodger agreement, I just don't think it's worth the hassle trying to charge any "rent".
Just both pay a demonstrable mathematical share of the bills and have an easy life.0 -
It could be seen as either.
They gave money towards the house. Whether the owner spent it on the bills or repairs doesn't matter.
Without going to the hassle of setting up a legally binding rental/lodger agreement, I just don't think it's worth the hassle trying to charge any "rent".
Just both pay a demonstrable mathematical share of the bills and have an easy life.
I was suggesting that the partner pay bills directly, i.e. from their own bank account.
Therefore it would be hard to suggest that the OP 'spent money on bills' when the partner paid the bills directly from their bank account.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
I was suggesting that the partner pay bills directly, i.e. from their own bank account.
Therefore it would be hard to suggest that the OP 'spent money on bills' when the partner paid the bills directly from their bank account.
Yes, I do understand.
It makes no difference. The partner would be demonstrably paying more than half the bills. The rest could be constituted to be payment towards anything else to do with the house which may result in them being able claim a beneficial interest in the property, unless a legal lodger agreement has been set up.
For example, the OP being able to afford repairs due to the partner paying all the bills would definitely result in the partner having a beneficial interest in the property. The partner has effectively contributed towards the repair, whether it is through a direct payment or not.
Call it what you will, it's the value of the payment that matters, not whether the money went to the OP or the electricity company.0 -
For example, the OP being able to afford repairs /mortgage/improvements/modifications to the structure of the property due to the partner paying all the bills would definitely result in the partner having a beneficial interest in the property. The partner has effectively contributed towards the repair, whether it is through a direct payment or not.
This is the point ^^^ (my bolded addition for clarification)
The law is set out in Burns v Burns and the cases that followed. An easy to read summary is here
http://pntodd.users.netlink.co.uk/cases/cases_b/burns.htm
Basically, if you want to give your OH a share in your house, fine sort it out legally, so everything is clear.
If now is not the right time, take the house out of the equation. It is your house and your responsibility. Keep it that way and there will be no misunderstandings or disputes if the relationship later goes belly up.I'm a retired employment solicitor. Hopefully some of my comments might be useful, but they are only my opinion and not intended as legal advice.0 -
Yes, I do understand.
It makes no difference. The partner would be demonstrably paying more than half the bills. The rest could be constituted to be payment towards anything else to do with the house which may result in them being able claim a beneficial interest in the property, unless a legal lodger agreement has been set up.
For example, the OP being able to afford repairs due to the partner paying all the bills would definitely result in the partner having a beneficial interest in the property. The partner has effectively contributed towards the repair, whether it is through a direct payment or not.
Call it what you will, it's the value of the payment that matters, not whether the money went to the OP or the electricity company.
Seems like quite a leap to make, from overpaying on your share of the bills to owning part of the property.What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0 -
I would draw up a short, written, and legally binding agreement regarding the house. Whatever arrangement you'd be happy with (payment towards the mortgage, no payment towards the mortgage etc etc etc), you as the owner of the property want to make sure that there are no grey areas regarding your partner's entitlement to your property.0
-
Seems like quite a leap to make, from overpaying on your share of the bills to owning part of the property.
Read the article I posted above. It is a leap (of that nature) that the courts have been prepared to make. Hence the advice.I'm a retired employment solicitor. Hopefully some of my comments might be useful, but they are only my opinion and not intended as legal advice.0 -
zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »Read the article I posted above. It is a leap (of that nature) that the courts have been prepared to make. Hence the advice.
I stand corrected
What will your verse be?
R.I.P Robin Williams.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards