Renting to a boyfriend?

jezmyers

franklee wrote: »

I'm not sure you've thought this through. Let's say you have the agreement that the property remains all yours and your GF pays rent.

You talk of a rent holiday during the maternity leave but what about afterwards? If the GF stays home to look after baby then how can she pay rent? If you stay at home to look after baby then how can you pay your share? If you both work then how will GF afford both childcare costs AND rent to you? It sounds like you can't afford childcare costs if you need the rent?

Let's say the worst happens and you split up. You keep the property, does the child then live with you? If so that raises the childcare costs again. How will you get a new lodger to pay the rent if there is a screaming baby in the house?

OTH if you split up and the child lives with her then how will she afford that Will she even get benefits if you are sitting on a wad of equity? Will you sleep nights if your child is in a grotty council house or worse? Do you really think the council will house them when you've got a perfectly good property yourself? I really do think your property will be at risk as you look for a way to house your child Maybe you can post how you would arrange things should a split occur?

It's a bit late now but maybe your having a child wasn't the best idea at this time? Although I do admire your frankness.

i see what you're saying and you bring up some very valid points but, once again, I want to make this very clear. I am very happy with my girlfriend and love her more than I could ever put into words. I'm excited at the prospect of parenthood, we both are, and I have no reason whatsoever to doubt our relationship or the future of it. I just have a hope for the best, prepare for the worst mentality (cynicism at its very best). I also think it's quite interesting to debate these things and have a constructive discussion on the merits or pitfalls of your partner moving in with you. Personally, I'm still gutted at the fact that you can't claim housing benefit (if she's not working) for her part of the rent (being the mortgage if you catch my drift) just because you're a couple that live together. If you lived apart you'd be eligible.

With regards to childcare costs down the line, I'd imagine that we'll do it the same as every other couple which is we'll both work and the childcare will comes out of that amount? I don't necessarily "need" the rent, my mortgage is quite affordable. However, I do use the money to fund home improvements. I expect that, realistically, we could cope if, after the maternity pay ends, she stays at home and is a full time mother. Whether we'll be better or worse off if she returns to work remains to be seen but i'm sure that's a different discussion for a different thread. The discussion is more based around the financial "loss" incurred by the move in versus her not moving in/moving out and trying to come to collective view (as with any discussion) on whether it's viable/sensible for unmarried couples that are having a child to live together or not.

As for what happens in the case of a break up, well, ask people who have broken up? Surely this is why I've been saying that it maybe is worth seeking legal advice on the situation? I know that when couples go into buying a property together they can make an agreement based on the amount they put into a property though i'm not sure how the specific percentages work out. I guess that something similar is the sensible option? There are so many different options related to my specific circumstances that could occur in the course of a break up so it's worthless to list them all. I will always do right by my child and make the best provision for it that I can. That's the only guarantee that any parent can give.

However, taking the child out of the equation as it makes for a whole new argument, if i owned a property and my gf moved in (in place of a tenant) and we lived together for say 5 years and then broke up and she moved out, would she be liable to claim part of the property? I think this is the bigger question with wider implications really.

jezmyers

Bad_BB wrote: »

by jezmyers

"I am taking a pretty big financial hit to have her living with me".

I am really shocked at your response towards your GF!

We have been told by you that you really care for her and are very happy in your relationship and you want to make a family unit together.

If this is the case why don't you marry the lady? Make an honourable woman out of her and give the child the security of knowing his/her parents are totally committed to each other. This is what marriage is all about...commitment. It's not old fashioned to get married....it's the norm. It's give and take, as well as total unselfishness on both sides.

When this child is old enough to hear about the way his/her Daddy wanted to protect his assets against his/her Mummy getting anything, how do you think the child will view you? How will this child ever feel secure? Believe me, children are not stupid and they do sense things, as well as find out the truths...

All this talk about assets and yet no mention about the poor child, who in the future may suffer emotionally because Mummy and Daddy weren't committed enough to each other!

Why did you opt to conceive this child under these circumstances? I'm just interested to know?

"I am taking a pretty big financial hit to have her living with me" was just a purposely inflammatory statement to push the fact that it's a financially deterimental to have her move in thus showing that, in the case of a break up, the financial loss would be a double loss.

I have every intention of marrying my girlfriend and this will occur when we both settled enough to do so. Upon finding out she was pregnant, several people, including family members, asked if I was intending to marry her but we weren't planning on it beforehand so there's no reason to do so now. Honest woman or not, people who get married "just" because they are having a child are hardly doing so under the correct circumstances.

As for the conception, it came as a shock to both of us but, as the initial shock has worn off, I've become significantly happier in the situation. Ideally we'd have waited a few more years until I was further on in my career and she was too and we were both more financially secure and married blah...blah... but then, when is the perfect time?

However, my own personal character and situation aside, and, as stated earlier, I find it disappointing that we live in a society whereby we have to put various safeguards in place in our relationships.

Would you agree to a pre-nup (if they were binding in this country)? Surely this would essentially be a pre-nup but without the marriage part?

franklee

jezmyers wrote: »

As for what happens in the case of a break up, well, ask people who have broken up? Surely this is why I've been saying that it maybe is worth seeking legal advice on the situation? I know that when couples go into buying a property together they can make an agreement based on the amount they put into a property though i'm not sure how the specific percentages work out. I guess that something similar is the sensible option? There are so many different options related to my specific circumstances that could occur in the course of a break up so it's worthless to list them all. I will always do right by my child and make the best provision for it that I can. That's the only guarantee that any parent can give.

I don't see how you can afford to do right by your child and keep your property and all your current equity intact. It's no good asking other couples that have broken up as we are discussing your particular aims which are:

1. Protect your property and all it's current equity from claim by your GF should the worst happen and you split up. Accepting that you hope that doesn't happen.

2. Have your GF pay a similar rent to the current tenant except during her maternity leave.

So in the case of a split what options are you considering to house your child? If you've thought as far as wanting to protect your property then surely you must have also considered where the child will live and how that and it's care will be paid for otherwise how can you take a view on what it would be fair for you to keep? So please set out your thoughts on this otherwise I begin to think you are just discussing a hypothetical situation...

Bad_BB

I have every intention of marrying my girlfriend and this will occur when we both settled enough to do so.

I'm really pleased to here this, it means you have commitment towards each other. Surely if you are now expecting a child, why can't you be settled enough to marry her now? You have a very good reason....a baby is on the way and by the sound of it, you are delighted with this prospect.

Would you agree to a pre-nup (if they were binding in this country)? Surely this would essentially be a pre-nup but without the marriage part?

I am very much in favour of pre-nups. This may seem an unusual reply, given my thoughts already posted on marriage and commitment, but I do believe that whatever was brought in to the relationship before the marriage should stay with the person who originally had it.

Having said that, I do believe that that we all should share the responsibility of taking care of our children. Hypothetically, should you get married and subsequently divorced, would you want your child and his/her mother to live in a council flat and on benefits? I certainly wouldn't.

Personally, I'm still gutted at the fact that you can't claim housing benefit (if she's not working) for her part of the rent (being the mortgage if you catch my drift) just because you're a couple that live together.

I am quite amazed at your take on this. Why is it all about benefits? Benifits are paid by the taxpayer. Why should someone else be responsible for other peoples problems/mistakes, etc? Why should Mr. X next door, myself or anyone else on this board be paying for other peoples benefits? How much does this all cost the taxpayer? Why can't we all be responsible for our own living expenses and if we have to work 3 jobs to pay for it, so be it....work 3 jobs!

Life is not a free ride....except if you live in Britain in seems!

jezmyers

franklee wrote: »

I don't see how you can afford to do right by your child and keep your property and all your current equity intact. It's no good asking other couples that have broken up as we are discussing your particular aims which are:

1. Protect your property and all it's current equity from claim by your GF should the worst happen and you split up. Accepting that you hope that doesn't happen.

2. Have your GF pay a similar rent to the current tenant except during her maternity leave.

So in the case of a split what options are you considering to house your child? If you've thought as far as wanting to protect your property then surely you must have also considered where the child will live and how that and it's care will be paid for otherwise how can you take a view on what it would be fair for you to keep? So please set out your thoughts on this otherwise I begin to think you are just discussing a hypothetical situation...

aim 1 is about correct, aim 2 isn't so much about her paying similar rent as having a tenant more about aim 1 really! So, taking this into account, are we now accepting that for people who own their own properties have no way of safeguarding their home once they choose to move a partner in?

As for the second question, if a split were to occur then the child would either live with me (unlikely as we all know) or live with its mother wherever she chooses that to be. I would expect that its care would be paid for through a combination of the mother's income, my income and benefits. Obviously I'm not about to discuss my specific financial situation in terms of amounts i'd offer and i've not even thought about that. Well, now you have made me think about it, but I still don't have a figure.

My thoughts about protecting my property only occured to me earlier today (yesterday now) upon reading what the OP had said and the posts that had occured. Until that time I was under the (wrong) impression that someone moving into your property, partner or otherwise, was able to claim a stake in your property prior to marriage. Clearly this can be contrued as naivety on my part, however, the importance of flagging this up should serve as a "heads up" to other people who are thinking of inviting their partners to move in with them.

Yes this situation is hypothetical in parts because we're discussing a situation and what would happen in under given circumstances without them having actually happened.

Again, would you agree to a pre-nup if they were legally binding? I view this as nothing more than that.

jezmyers

Bad_BB wrote: »

I'm really pleased to here this, it means you have commitment towards each other. Surely if you are now expecting a child, why can't you be settled enough to marry her now? You have a very good reason....a baby is on the way and by the sound of it, you are delighted with this prospect.

we are totally committed to each other, I don't think that's up for debate really. I suspect that "technically" we are both settled enough to get married now however, with a baby on the way, I'm not about to start planning a wedding and nor is she. As I said, down the line I imagine we will get married, just let me get the birth out of the way first please!

Bad_BB wrote: »

I am very much in favour of pre-nups. This may seem an unusual reply, given my thoughts already posted on marriage and commitment, but I do believe that whatever was brought in to the relationship before the marriage should stay with the person who originally had it.

Having said that, I do believe that that we all should share the responsibility of taking care of our children. Hypothetically, should you get married and subsequently divorced, would you want your child and his/her mother to live in a council flat and on benefits? I certainly wouldn't.

if you're in favour of pre-nups (as am i) then how can you be against me wanting to safeguard what i'm bringing into relationship? That is literally all I'm trying to do.

Would I want my child and his/her mother living in a council flat? I work within the social housing sector and have done so for the last 6 years. Therefore, I feel that I have to say that the various housing estates are lovely and I would be more than happy to live there myself. Saying otherwise would simply be snobbish :A (did I dodge answering that question adequately?)

Bad_BB wrote: »

I am quite amazed at your take on this. Why is it all about benefits? Benifits are paid by the taxpayer. Why should someone else be responsible for other peoples problems/mistakes, etc? Why should Mr. X next door, myself or anyone else on this board be paying for other peoples benefits? How much does this all cost the taxpayer? Why can't we all be responsible for our own living expenses and if we have to work 3 jobs to pay for it, so be it....work 3 jobs!

no no no, I'm not all about benefits at all. My post was at the dismay that if we lived apart we would collectively be in a better financial position. The point I was trying to make was that by her moving in with me she loses her right to claim housing benefit. The benefit that a non-partner renting the second room in property would have access to. If we're supposed to be living in a society that promotes couples living together then how does my swapping an unemployed tenant for my unemployed girlfriend* thus freeing up one of the few council/HA properties available, result in my being £55 a week in rent poorer?
As for general benefits, I don't believe that the current system is correct. You shouldn't be pushed into getting a job if you don't want one, however, you should equally not be able to claim or receive reduced benefits if you're unemployed beyond a specific length of time and are able to work.




*this is a hypothetical situation. Both my previous tenant and my girlfriend work.

franklee

jezmyers wrote: »

aim 1 is about correct, aim 2 isn't so much about her paying similar rent as having a tenant more about aim 1 really! So, taking this into account, are we now accepting that for people who own their own properties have no way of safeguarding their home once they choose to move a partner in?

No, we are discussing you in particular and in your case there is a baby due. You are both responsible for providing for the baby and in doing that I should think you won't be left sitting on a large asset unless the baby lives with you.

jezmyers wrote: »

As for the second question, if a split were to occur then the child would either live with me (unlikely as we all know) or live with its mother wherever she chooses that to be. I would expect that its care would be paid for through a combination of the mother's income, my income and benefits. Obviously I'm not about to discuss my specific financial situation in terms of amounts i'd offer and i've not even thought about that. Well, now you have made me think about it, but I still don't have a figure.

Sorry no I don't except specific amounts even if you knew them they are clearly private. What I meant was if you retain your property and all it's equity and the baby doesn't live with you then where does the cash come from in general to set up home for the baby and pay for childcare? In effect you and GF will have to run two homes and if she is working also pay for child care. From what you have posted that seems unaffordable, your income is erratic and it doesn't sound like you've much spare. GF sounds like a lowish earner. So I should think your equity would need to be drawn upon in one way or another. Also would your savings/equity/property be taken account when assessing benefits? Would the council say well the baby has a perfectly good roof at Dads and so we aren't going to provide another? If not would you be happy with your baby in say a council B&B or grotty flat while you are in the relative luxury of your property?

On the one hand you wish to provide for baby but on the other you wish to retain the property and equity. You don't seem to see baby as taking some of this whereas I think that's inevitable one way or another be it by living with you or your providing for it to live with GF. It is the baby that's causing your financial loss not the GF moving in. If the GF was unencumbered with baby then she could carry on working and pay her way like the tenant. I don't think you have registered what effect a baby has on a couple both financially and sheer round the clock physical hard work. I'm afraid your easy going lifestyle is going to be turned on it's head! Maybe then your priorities will change

As for a pre-nup, I don't see that's relevant unless you are rich. It would not allow you to evade paying a minimum standard for your child and if after that there's little left over then what difference would the agreement make?

Besides if house prices fall and your GF doesn't have an equity stake in your property then it would make financial sense for her to buy her own place to take advantage of the next boom. But what if she can't afford to do that as she's been off work looking after your child? I'd suggest she would assign the childcare to you and go buy her own place or she will miss out altogether

jezmyers

franklee wrote: »

I'm afraid your easy going lifestyle is going to be turned on it's head!

why would you even say something so spiteful, designed to purposely upset me???

you do however make very fair and valid points. My income's only erratic because I spent so much time going on cheap mse based holidays. Sadly i'm now switching to a secure permanent position due to the baby. Despite what i've said on here, we're actually relatively financially secure. I have very few outgoings outside of my main ones and my gf's only on a low wage whilst she finishes her qualification. The whole debate is based upon the fact that I want to be able to protect my property going into the relationship.

From a housing point of view, once I stop becoming a "partner" then my assets aren't taken into account with regards to council based accommodation.

"On the one hand you wish to provide for baby but on the other you wish to retain the property and equity. You don't seem to see baby as taking some of this whereas I think that's inevitable one way or another be it by living with you or your providing for it to live with GF. It is the baby that's causing your financial loss not the GF moving in. If the GF was unencumbered with baby then she could carry on working and pay her way like the tenant. I don't think you have registered what effect a baby has on a couple both financially and sheer round the clock physical hard work."

Nail. Head. Hit.

Bad_BB

You shouldn't be pushed into getting a job if you don't want one.

by jezmyers

What's wrong with going out and collecting beer cans to keep one off the streets and put food in one's mouth?
Why should other people have to pay for lazy a**ed b***ars?

franklee

jezmyers wrote: »

you do however make very fair and valid points. My income's only erratic because I spent so much time going on cheap mse based holidays. Sadly i'm now switching to a secure permanent position due to the baby.

Ah, so you had an easy going holiday lifestyle

jezmyers wrote: »

Despite what i've said on here, we're actually relatively financially secure. I have very few outgoings outside of my main ones and my gf's only on a low wage whilst she finishes her qualification. The whole debate is based upon the fact that I want to be able to protect my property going into the relationship.

From a housing point of view, once I stop becoming a "partner" then my assets aren't taken into account with regards to council based accommodation.

So you could be a millionaire and your GF and baby get council accommodation? Who was responsible for that :eek:

What about the GF buying her own house if prices fall as should she have no equity in yours she would want her own otherwise she'll miss out on the next boom? Which won't be possible if she's at yours doing childcare ...