Moving In With Girlfriend

fivetide

Guest101 wrote: »

He's not a lodger, he's a partner. Partners cant be lodgers.

They live as one household.

Good echo. Same thing posted 20 minutes prior.


As others have pointed out the big issue is contributing to the mortgage as the OP could put a claim in for equity should things go wrong.


All I am advocating is a legal agreement to 'contribute to the bills' without gaining a claim on the property. Not sure why you and Mojisola are being so funny about it to be honest? I can't see either of your posts as being helpful right now... they certainly don't give a solution to the OP, just criticism and negativity at me (which I don't think it right)


I just thought, in simple layman's terms for the OP a 'lodger' seemed the best description. Instead of just criticising, perhaps you would like to present an actual solution for the OP?

Mojisola

fivetide wrote: »

Instead of just criticising, perhaps you would like to present an actual solution for the OP?

They share all bills except mortgage and repairs/maintenance - either 50/50 or in proportion to their income.

He opens a new account and pays in what they decide is fair - the equivalent of half the mortgage or the local going rate for a houseshare or whatever - and lets that money build up.

If life is wonderful and they decide they are in the relationship for the long run, the savings become joint money - they could reduce the mortgage, buy somewhere else, have some good holidays, keep it as a rainy day fund, etc.

If they end up hating the sight of each other and want to go their separate ways, he will have a lump sum and can move out quickly without having any claim on her property.

heartbreak_star

Mojisola wrote: »

You could consider yourself to be the Queen of Sheba but that wouldn't have any legal standing, either.

That was a little rude, don't you think?!

I was just trying to state that not everyone considers a household with a couple in it a "partnership". Me and OH have totally separate finances and I give him money towards the bills.

I'm fairly certain that legally I have about as much claim to his house as a lodger would, having briefly spoken to a solicitor as I moved in fairly quickly and didn't want it to seem like I was money-grabbing.

HBS x

Mojisola

heartbreak_star wrote: »

That was a little rude, don't you think?!

I was just trying to state that not everyone considers a household with a couple in it a "partnership". Me and OH have totally separate finances and I give him money towards the bills.

I'm fairly certain that legally I have about as much claim to his house as a lodger would, having briefly spoken to a solicitor as I moved in fairly quickly and didn't want it to seem like I was money-grabbing.

It wasn't meant to be rude. A lot of people still consider themselves "common law" husbands and wives but that has no legal standing either.

Partners aren't lodgers or tenants. If a partner has been contributing towards the mortgage or maintaining the property, they can build up a beneficial interest in it - which a tenant or lodger can't do.

JimmyTheWig

heartbreak_star wrote: »

That was a little rude, don't you think?!

I actually thought it was quite light-hearted and slightly amusing.
But have removed my thanks now I see it caused offence...

heartbreak_star

Thank you Mojisola I do often agree with you on the boards and was a little taken aback by the tone I thought I interpreted! (And thank you Jimmy, but not necessary )

I see where you are coming from, but at the same time I suppose everything varies from situation to situation. I would be horrified if it was implied I was building beneficial interest in the property.

HBS x

snow_ball

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I actually thought it was quite light-hearted and slightly amusing.
But have removed my thanks now I see it caused offence...

I found it light hearted and amusing too, which is why I 'liked' it!

fivetide

To be hones HBS you are the case study for the approach I am advocating (and I do feel was knocked back in a rather unhelpful way.)


Mojisola - the last response to me was much better, you have at least tried to suggest a way forward rather than just knocking what I said. I can't see how walking off with a big pot of cash will go down well with the other half though if they split. It would technically mean the OP was living rent free, indeed he's only paying half the bills. That is surely having your cake and eating it?


Clearly the OP feels his OH should also benefit by having his income in the house - after all they are a partnership under one roof so is looking for a way to split things fairly.


Imagine the place is flooded and for some reason he insurance doesn't want to pay out. Do you think your suggestion of not contributing at all to repairs or maintenance will be conducive to the long term success of the relationship? I doubt it.


The build up of equity is exactly what I was talking about. I know a partner can't do that, and a lodger can't, that is EXACTLY why I said the OP might want to be considered in those terms and have an agreement saying so.


Really not sure why it has cause so much of a battle.

BoJangles_2

When I remortgaged my property my ex partner had to sign a form giving up any rights to the property in case of a split.

Guest101

fivetide wrote: »

Good echo. Same thing posted 20 minutes prior.


As others have pointed out the big issue is contributing to the mortgage as the OP could put a claim in for equity should things go wrong.


All I am advocating is a legal agreement to 'contribute to the bills' without gaining a claim on the property. Not sure why you and Mojisola are being so funny about it to be honest? I can't see either of your posts as being helpful right now... they certainly don't give a solution to the OP, just criticism and negativity at me (which I don't think it right)


I just thought, in simple layman's terms for the OP a 'lodger' seemed the best description. Instead of just criticising, perhaps you would like to present an actual solution for the OP?

It's been suggested already. They share bills and costs, but no rent is charged.

They are one household. If they applied for benefits, they would be one household. There is no 'lodger' agreement possible.

Either he pays towards the mortgage, or he doesnt. It's that simple. No point trying to screw the OP over what he is legally entitled to

Or should the mortgage holder have their mortgage paid for by someone else?