Hopefully you can help resolve this argument one way or another!

Pollycat

ska_lover wrote: »

You are living a nightmare in my opinion. Five jobs between you in order to pay the mortgage on a house that you barely spend any time in cos you are always at work and are stressed to the balls to pay for the house that you barely get to spend any time in you are missing out on life

I agree with this ^^^^.

"Life is a journey, not a destination".

FBaby

The plan was always to reduce our financial burden by having a lodger (lodger not a tenant- I have researched extensively, I promise )

Really it comes down to this. So either you too are not seeing it the same way, ie. it was clear to you that the purchase of the house was dependent on having lodger and this was not just mentioned, but discussed in details, income worked out, agreed who would handle the management of this business, decided how much rent you would ask with/without utilities, in which case you are right. Or was it a case of mentioning that IF you were struggling to repay the mortgage, you could consider having a lodger to make ends meet, in which case, he would be right.

If it was agreed in detail, and he changed his mind, he owes you a clear explanation and him to hold the responsibility of finding a fair compromise.

If you can't agree on the lodger/share of income, could you agree on giving up the mortgage overpayment for some time? That would go against the plan but then it sounds like that has already happened.

Ames

Who's driving the overpayments? (Apologies if it's been said and I missed it). If it's the husband, then fair enough it's unfair of him to be pushing for high expenses and low income. If it's the OP, and the husband is happy to just pay the mortgage normally, then rather than talking about a lodger they need to talk about the future, and what the house is for. As others have said it's all very well having a gorgeous house, but a bit pointless if you never get to spend any waking hours there.

getmore4less

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

If they only bought the place recently I'd be very surprised if they really couldn't afford it, mortgage lenders are pretty strict on affordability these days.

They are overpaying it, for some reason. They would probably be absolutely fine without a lodger and without either needing to work three jobs if they stopped doing that, at least for now. Most people don't overpay.

Looking like the original budgeting for this purchase included £600pm lodger money.

The budget adjustments post purchase may not be reasonable/balanced.

belfastgirl23

I could be wrong but... it sounds to me like you are both under pressure and expecting your partner to cut you some slack because of this (DH = ill sister; you = work issues. Honestly I think the LTV issue is crazy. Sometimes you need to decide to be kind to yourselves here and now. Stop overpaying, shelve the lodger idea til the cancer treatment is done and and agree that it’s ok to get a haircut.

LeesArt

Ames wrote: »

Who's driving the overpayments? (Apologies if it's been said and I missed it). If it's the husband, then fair enough it's unfair of him to be pushing for high expenses and low income. If it's the OP, and the husband is happy to just pay the mortgage normally, then rather than talking about a lodger they need to talk about the future, and what the house is for. As others have said it's all very well having a gorgeous house, but a bit pointless if you never get to spend any waking hours there.

It is simple, they bought this house that is bigger than they need with agreement that they would fund it by getting a lodger.

They are so short of money that HE is questioning how much she spends on her hair.

Meanwhile he does out of hours cover from home while she has to get a 3rd job.

So she is funding his lifestyle because he will not honour the agreement and he throws his toys out of the pram when a civil discussion is needed.

Red-Squirrel_2

getmore4less wrote: »

Looking like the original budgeting for this purchase included £600pm lodger money.

The budget adjustments post purchase may not be reasonable/balanced.

The lender won't have taken lodger income into account, they can afford it if they stop overpaying, I'm certain of it.

Ames

LeesArt wrote: »

It is simple, they bought this house that is bigger than they need with agreement that they would fund it by getting a lodger.

They are so short of money that HE is questioning how much she spends on her hair.

Meanwhile he does out of hours cover from home while she has to get a 3rd job.

So she is funding his lifestyle because he will not honour the agreement and he throws his toys out of the pram when a civil discussion is needed.

But it could be that the OP is the one wanting to overpay and the husband is happy to pay at the normal rate. From his point of view, the OP is saying they have to have a really tight budget so they can overpay, and then spending on other things. It could be that he isn't happy that she's running herself ragged working all hours and never spending time at home.

Or it could be that he sees the OP as a means to getting a big house he couldn't afford on his own, doesn't care that she has to run herself ragged working three jobs, doesn't care that she looks a mess, as long as he builds his equity without having to put himself out.

The truth will be somewhere in between - and where it lies will decide where the compromises should be.

And the first post does say 'His argument is that we are doing fine all the bills are being met', which suggests he's not quite on board with the overpayments as the OP is.

LeesArt

What matters is what was agreed between BOTH of them.

This is the problem with this kind of Joint Account , the other side thinks they can dictate how much she spends on her hair.

Sarastro

jackieblack wrote: »

Sorry, but I agree with your husband.
Maybe the solution would be to have your extra income paid into your joint account and for you each to have an amount transferred each week/month into your sole accounts which you can spend on whatever you like without feeling guilty.

You are joking, aren't you? The husband reneged on the deal to rent the flat out...but it's her responsibility to make up the short fall??