OK I'm worried now...

Newlyboughthouse

BlaEm wrote: »

I think a well drafted living together agreement would also afford him some security
Also, depending on whether half the mortgage is less than half the cost of what it would cost to rent, he may well be getting the cost benefit already.
Just my opinion - obviously it's your OH's opinion that matter, not ours. Hope your conversation goes mutually well!

Thanks BlaEm - I'm thinking the living together agreement will be the way to go. We'll see

NICHOLAS_2

Newlyboughthouse wrote: »

Love my OH but it's my house.

It WAS your house until he started paying money towards the mortgage and bills and sleeping with you.

Now he has a claim to it.

I'm not knocking your point of view though

I guess this law is good in the sense that it stops a man or woman from financially abusing the other by leaving them with nothing and ruining their life if they separate.

ruggedtoast

Srsly guys. Give the OP a break. She isn't kicking him out homeless, ripping him off, or giving him the impression he is investing in her property. By the sounds of it they've only been cohabiting for a couple of years.

Newlyboughthouse

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Srsly guys. Give the OP a break. She isn't kicking him out homeless, ripping him off, or giving him the impression he is investing in her property. By the sounds of it they've only been cohabiting for a couple of years.

Ha thanks Ruggedtoast - I do tend to find myself running for cover whenever I start a thread. Luckily I don't take it too personally as nobody can possibly ever have the full story from just a post.

FBaby

In the end, it all comes down to what you agree. If you are totally honest with him, make it clear that you don't intend on him to ever have an interest towards the house, and that the money he gives you doesn't amount to any investment at all, and he is happy with this, then that's his choice.

In most circumstances that go wrong, that's because things were not clear and the party paying towards the mortgage is led to believe that they would be entitled to something, or at least left in the dark and they are too naive to ask questions.

I personally would never agree to paying 50% of someone's mortgage with nothing in exchange. After all the argument that I would be paying rent otherwise is no different to the argument that they would have to pay for full mortgage if I wasn't there. But that's because my aim would always be to aspire to become a homeowner. Many people are happy to never invest in property.

Goldiegirl

I'm experiencing a strange sense of deja vu, as the OP started the same thread on the mortgage and endowments area of the board.

I feel sorry for the bloke. He probably thinks he's the Op's long term partner, when he's actually just the lodger.

Newlyboughthouse

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I'm experiencing a strange sense of deja vu, as the OP started the same thread on the mortgage and endowments area of the board.

I feel sorry for the bloke. He probably thinks he's the Op's long term partner, when he's actually just the lodger.

Yup as I said in my OP - also in the Mortgages board as wasn't sure which was best. Glad I did as have got some good food for thought on both. Not sure why posting on 2 boards is a problem - I don't take offence to it myself..

Awww don't feel sorry for him he's fine lol

esmerelda98

FBaby wrote: »

The problem is, if he was putting that same amount towards rent, he would have much more rights than he has now. He certainly wouldn't be able to be told to get out that evening if you decided you didn't want him any longer. Paying for some level of security is a big aspect of renting. Paying for even more level of security is part of paying towards a mortgage.

At the moment, you expect him to pay as he would if he was paying towards a mortgage or rent except he gets none of the benefits at all.

I personally believe that if he is happy to pay towards 'having a roof over his head' as you put it, then it shouldn't be anything more than 1/3rd of the mortgage, the difference making up for the loss of security.

Lodgers have hardly any security. They also have hardly any responsibilities. This will be the case wherever he lodges. He would have many more rights if he rents, but he's not renting here, the situation is more like lodging.

This set-up is not for me but I think that if both parties are clear about what is on offer and clearly document it, whatever they agree is fine.

Argghhh

Everybody is ignoring the fact that her OH may be totally happy with any arrangement she makes. Although there are pitfalls and peoples ideas are slightly different, if he is happy contributing to the mortgage its his business. If after the chat he realises he is not happy with the deal he is free to move out, buy out her share so 50/50 or they sell and buy a new house together. OP might be the hottest thing on 2 legs and he is willing to pay anything to share her bed at night lol

JencParker

nubbins wrote: »

Actually the more I look at your original post the more I think is it fair. Why should he pay half your mortgage and outgoings for two years and then just walk away. If the boot was on the other foot you would be on here asking if you are entitled to anything for paying half the mortgage, would you not, or would you just walk away because its fair?

Wouldn't a lodger do exactly the same? Why the difference? Presumably if the OH was renting elsewhere he would be paying the LL mortgage but would not have any interest in the LL's property so why different in this case?