Living in a house my partner owns

ThePants999

You don't have to get all your ducks in a row before you have a conversation. Just put your thoughts to him, pretty much exactly as you put them to us, and see what he says.

BlackBird75

I think the complicating issue here, is that the OP has included "rent" (in addition to utility bills) in the £600/m payment.
Can an unmarried "partner" pay "rent" to an owner occupier (as would a lodger)? Or would a court judge that the OP is contributing to the mortgage?

If the OP were to be classified as a lodger, she would probably be contributing to the mortgage payments in effect, but derive no equity in the house from it.

This is a growing problem in the UK these days.

I would discuss with Shelter / CAB first, then see a solicitor. If the OP feels awkward about the "rent" payment issue, then at least discuss wills.

Otherwise, were the home owner to die, the house would go to his parents (or his own kids) etc.

Comms69

BlackBird75 wrote: »

I think the complicating issue here, is that the OP has included "rent" (in addition to utility bills) in the £600/m payment.
Can an unmarried "partner" pay "rent" to an owner occupier (as would a lodger)? Or would a court judge that the OP is contributing to the mortgage? - im not sure if you're confused or what, but using 'rent', doesn't make it so.

If the OP were to be classified as a lodger, she would probably be contributing to the mortgage payments in effect, but derive no equity in the house from it. - you're wrong, for many reasons. The simplest one is, a lodger doesn't typically share the LLs bed. - a partner can never be a lodger.

This is a growing problem in the UK these days. - it's not

I would discuss with Shelter / CAB first - Possibly useful. Occasionally you get someone using the company braincell when you ring , then see a solicitor - that's one sure fire way of getting thrown out... . If the OP feels awkward about the "rent" payment issue, then at least discuss wills.

Otherwise, were the home owner to die, the house would go to his parents (or his own kids) etc.

I think you're muddying the waters with little to no benefit

quantumlobster

BlackBird75 wrote: »

I don't think there's any need to get married.
I would speak to a solicitor and get a contract drawn up and a will made.
Much easier (and probably much cheaper too).

Given that it costs about £50 to get married, probably not. (A wedding, on the other hand...)

Marriage (or civil partnership - are they legally equivalent, now that they're available to all?) conveys certain rights at the end of life, especially around medical decisions and property.

There are any number of achingly sad stories of people who found themselves in terrible situations when their partner, with whom they spent a devoted lifetime, turned out to have a family that was less than graceful about end of life decisions and inheritance.

BlackBird75

Comms69 wrote: »

I think you're muddying the waters with little to no benefit

I know a guy who had a female lodger move in. At the time, the girl had a different boyfriend. The boyfriend moved away to work and the relationship ended.
The guy became involved in a relationship with his female lodger. But they still had separate bedrooms. When they split up, he asked her to leave. She went to see a solicitor who apparently told her she wasn't entitled to any share in the house. Apparently the relationship meant nothing, as she had started out as a lodger.

Slightly different, I know. But worth considering.

Unmarried cohabitation is much more common than it used to be. I'm sure you can confirm this.

Comms69

BlackBird75 wrote: »

I know a guy who had a female lodger move in. At the time, the girl had a different boyfriend. The boyfriend moved away to work and the relationship ended.
The guy became involved in a relationship with his female lodger. But they still had separate bedrooms. When they split up, he asked her to leave. She went to see a solicitor who apparently told her she wasn't entitled to any share in the house. Apparently the relationship meant nothing, as she had started out as a lodger. - That is too simplistic. I suspect the real reason is that, conversely to the above - Sleeping with your landlord doesn't mean you're partners.

Slightly different, I know. But worth considering.

Unmarried cohabitation is much more common than it used to be. I'm sure you can confirm this.

Yes, but that isn't a 'problem'.

BlackBird75

quantumlobster wrote: »

Given that it costs about £50 to get married, probably not. (A wedding, on the other hand...)

Marriage (or civil partnership - are they legally equivalent, now that they're available to all?) conveys certain rights at the end of life, especially around medical decisions and property.

There are any number of achingly sad stories of people who found themselves in terrible situations when their partner, with whom they spent a devoted lifetime, turned out to have a family that was less than graceful about end of life decisions and inheritance.

But you are not accounting for the time and money involved in a divorce.
I think a cohabitation agreement is much easier to enact than a divorce.

BlackBird75

Comms69 wrote: »

Yes, but that isn't a 'problem'.

It's a potential problem, in that it provides less provision and protection to the surviving "partner", in the event of death etc.

The real problem is that too many people adhere to the notion of "common law" spouse, which doesn't exist.

Comms69

BlackBird75 wrote: »

It's a potential problem, in that it provides less provision and protection to the surviving "partner", in the event of death etc.

The real problem is that too many people adhere to the notion of "common law" spouse, which doesn't exist.

Sure. I mean people are completely ignorant and ill prepared in the UK for adulthood. (something my local area is looking to change in a big way)


But I think you're overestimating the problem too. If they buy as joint owners, then the surviving party automatically gets the property.


Other instances can be fixed with a will.

quantumlobster

BlackBird75 wrote: »

But you are not accounting for the time and money involved in a divorce.
I think a cohabitation agreement is much easier to enact than a divorce.

Who's getting divorced?

And no co-habitation agreement will override next-of-kin issues.