Brother's Girlfriend Moving In

snowleopard61

Confusedandneedhelp wrote: »

View taken of course.

Just a quick counter. The OP has been lucky to have a brother who has paid half of everything for her and her daughters (yes they have no income, but that's a parents responsibility)

even if it's fair that a new person should pay, is it fair that the brother has been paying. If nothing else, id say it balances out. But like you say, your views.

On the whole I do think it’s fair, on the basis that the OP lived there first and the brother moved in with her on the basis of a 50/50 split – as she was there first, she was entitled to choose the terms. Admittedly I get the impression from the above that he was bailing her out by doing so, rather than doing so mainly for his own benefit, but I do think the situation is different from the present one because the girlfriend is another adult.

Confusedandneedhelp

snowleopard61 wrote: »

On the whole I do think it’s fair, on the basis that the OP lived there first and the brother moved in with her on the basis of a 50/50 split – as she was there first, she was entitled to choose the terms. Admittedly I get the impression from the above that he was bailing her out by doing so, rather than doing so mainly for his own benefit, but I do think the situation is different from the present one because the girlfriend is another adult.

So if the Brother was adopting 2 children (same increase in bills etc) then this wouldnt be an issue?

I agree adults should pay their way. I just dont see why the OP should benefit from her brother paying for half the house, but not using half the house (ie paying more than his share) and then his GF should pay more on top?

The GF paying to the brother, absolutely agree with this.

snowleopard61

Actually in the case a poster above (I’m losing track of names!) mentioned, where the brother hypothetically became guardian to two children, I would think it completely fair that he continued to pay 50% and no more. If he chose to adopt, I think it might be a rather unfair thing to do in terms of the good of the household, but financially it would also be not unreasonable to continue with the present arrangements, because he would be no better off as they are children.

It does seem to me to make a big difference that it’s the brother and girlfriend, not the OP, who’s making the change.

StuC75

But the OP only works 3 days a week (well in the last thread about this), so may have more 'daytime' that is in the property - even if is looking to then be away at weekends.

So don't think that level of breaking down usage works - whats next the gf goes to the gym everyday so woulnt need to shower as much so isn't using as much water?.. Or that the kids go through more clothes that need laundering..

In the most basic terms the OP is responsible for 3 people that live in the house (OP + 2 Daughters), and there is soon to be 5 people in total in the house, since the OP's Brother is currently paying half the bills then its more the case that girlfriend should be paying into his share of bills etc - and so that may be something they want to discuss between themselves for what there long term plans are?

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

I don't totally agree with this. If she is away every weekend, then her and her children are only in the house 5 days a week. And as most people are out at school / work through the week they are perhaps not using as much utilities as the brother.

Personally, I think she should pay some rent. Who lives rent free anywhere? When I got my first job I paid board to my mum of £60 a week, so that was £240. Why shouldn't this woman pay towards her keep?

Confusedandneedhelp

snowleopard61 wrote: »

Actually in the case a poster above (I’m losing track of names!) mentioned, where the brother hypothetically became guardian to two children, I would think it completely fair that he continued to pay 50% and no more. If he chose to adopt, I think it might be a rather unfair thing to do in terms of the good of the household, but financially it would also be not unreasonable to continue with the present arrangements, because he would be no better off as they are children.

It does seem to me to make a big difference that it’s the brother and girlfriend, not the OP, who’s making the change.

So because the brother doesnt want to spend two more years living in the shadow (and yes that is what i think this is) of his sister and wants to progress with life, the OP should benefit from this?

Think we arent going to agree, but interesting viewpoint.

snowleopard61

Confusedandneedhelp wrote: »

So because the brother doesnt want to spend two more years living in the shadow (and yes that is what i think this is) of his sister and wants to progress with life, the OP should benefit from this?

Think we arent going to agree, but interesting viewpoint.

The OP isn't benefiting from the brother's desire to progress with life; if anything she's suffering from it, however reasonable it may be in itself. But ditto to the second para!

tea_lover

snowleopard61 wrote: »

The OP isn't benefiting from the brother's desire to progress with life; if anything she's suffering from it, however reasonable it may be in itself. But ditto to the second para!

If the OP's initial suggestion is followed, and the GF pays 1/3 of the bills then the OP would be benefiting.

pollyanna24

Thanks again everyone.

How is my brother living in my shadow?

Yes, he helped me out when my ex bailed out and bought him out of the house. But he also wanted an investment and didn't want to live at my parents' anymore.

For the past three years (and hopefully for the next two), we have been perfectly happy all living together. He works night shifts, I work day, and so half the time we don't see each other anyway. And then there's me going away most weekends.

I've got everyone's viewpoints on it and the general consensus seems to be that I'm using my brother and he has definitely got the bad end of the bargain.

So I won't mention money to them. And just see what they come up with.

FBaby

Mmm on one hand brother partner is only a girlfriend who should be considered as no different than a lodger on the other hand she is the brother future wife who will therefore benefit form the sale of the house. Sounds a bit like pick and choose depending on the argument.

It is not that uncommon for some women to give up work when engaged ans moving together on the understanding that the man will support the future wife. Clearly not the intention in this case as she wants to contribute but totally agree that this amount should be between her and fiance and nothing to do with OP and 50/50 should remain on the basis that OP had two children.

tom9980

Ignoring most of what people are now arguing over what me and my wife do with her sister is

1/3 of the bills (just the 3 of us here)

She then pays £20 a week extra which basically covers her having boyfriend around, friends over, using our cleaning stuff and covering wear and tear on our property. Net result she pays us around £225 a month.

She buys all her own food.

We don't include the mortgage in our calculations that's our responsibility.

In your situation i would split the mortgage 50/50 with brother
council tax 1/3 each
Other Bills would be 60% brother and girlfriend and you 40% split rather than a third because of your kids.

In this situation everyone saves some cash.