Moving in with boyfriend and Cohabitation agreement

Tom99

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The law does not give him any beneficial interest in your property when he contributes to the total expense of running the property.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]I am sure that if you trawl through past case history going back many years you will fine a case where partner B has successfully claimed a beneficial interest but not in circumstances like yours. The fact that you already own the property and you are both clear that his contribution does not give him a beneficial interest would make the chances of success of such a claim zero.[/FONT]

Tom99

Comms69 wrote: »

How is the law fair?
It's simple. You are taking his money and putting it into your pocket, and expect him to gain nothing from it....
I mean 'my property'; you own a lease, and the owe the bank the majority of it. I hardly think the moral high ground is on your side here

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The money goes towards paying the mortgage and running the property, he gains a flat share with his partner so hardly 'nothing'. How much would a flat share normally cost him?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The OP is being very generous in suggesting this money is put aside for a future joint purchase.[/FONT]

Goldust

Why don't you just get him to pay half the bills and then he saves any disposable income he has?


Then when you decide to buy somewhere together, your equity you have and are continuing to build up pays your contribution and his savings pay for his? Or roughly this anyway. Of course this assumes he can be trusted to stick to the plan!

hazyjo

Try to see it that you're also living rent free (ie not giving money to someone else to live in their property). You are paying off a loan on something you have bought (your property). Why should he pay for that?

I agree with others, should be half of all bills, food, etc, with a bit extra.

Let him be generous and pay for the holidays, or nights out, and maybe agree that he really ought to be saving a large chunk in case things do go Pete Tong and he then has enough to move straight out with a deposit for somewhere, or a deposit for a mortgage if longer. But you can't really insist on it.

I'd be tempted to just stick with a round figure like £300 for half of all bills and shopping. Surely that can't be too far off anyway for two?

If you think he's getting a great deal, so are you. £300 or so a month? That will make a huge difference! I know he'll be using stuff too, but it's not that much more expensive for two to live in a house than one! I always felt loaded when I had BFs move in (two went on to become husbands, but that's another story!).

Don't blame you for wanting to protect yourself, you're just looking at it from the wrong angle.

Comms69

Tom99 wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The money goes towards paying the mortgage and running the property, he gains a flat share with his partner so hardly 'nothing'. How much would a flat share normally cost him?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]The OP is being very generous in suggesting this money is put aside for a future joint purchase.[/FONT]

The principle of beneficial interest was created in part to protect unmarried women from losing their homes...


Shockingly now we see people actively promoting the abuse of position against their partners for their own benefit.


As I said, several time, in a flat share, he's a tenant. You seem to be avoiding that point. Where is his protection and freedom in this situation?!

Tom99

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

hazyjo wrote: »

Try to see it that you're also living rent free

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Hardly, the OP has paid the deposit and other purchase costs which could be earning interest and most of the mortgage will be interest on the loan, plus service charge building insurance etc.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

hazyjo wrote: »

Why should he pay for that?

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]He has to live somewhere why should that somewhere be free?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]

Comms69 wrote: »

The principle of beneficial interest was created in part to protect unmarried women from losing their homes...
Shockingly now we see people actively promoting the abuse of position against their partners for their own benefit.
As I said, several time, in a flat share, he's a tenant. You seem to be avoiding that point. Where is his protection and freedom in this situation?!

[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]He has a home for probably a lot less that a flat share would cost and has the freedom to leave at any time without any further commitment. [/FONT]

Comms69

Tom99 wrote: »

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Hardly, the OP has paid the deposit and other purchase costs which could be earning interest and most of the mortgage will be interest on the loan, plus service charge building insurance etc.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]He has to live somewhere why should that somewhere be free?[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]He has a home for probably a lot less that a flat share would cost and has the freedom to leave at any time without any further commitment. [/FONT]

He is being treated as a cash machine, being offered no rights, no say on the property - in essence forced to bend to the whim of his partner in order to maintain shelter; whilst paying for half the mortgage...


I really fail to see any validity in your position. It's hardly difficult to get a mortgage.

Tom99

Comms69 wrote: »

He is being treated as a cash machine, being offered no rights, no say on the property - in essence forced to bend to the whim of his partner in order to maintain shelter; whilst paying for half the mortgage...
I really fail to see any validity in your position. It's hardly difficult to get a mortgage.

About the same rights as a lodger, so not many, but probably at a lower cost. Its not that easy to put up a deposit and get a mortgage and I don't see why anyone would want to share that success with a live in partner until the relationship has become permanent.

Comms69

Tom99 wrote: »

About the same rights as a lodger, so not many, but probably at a lower cost. - Lodgers have more rights than the partner in this case. And that's between two strangers in a business setting, not an intimate relationship... Its not that easy to put up a deposit and get a mortgage - which bit is difficult? and I don't see why anyone would want to share that success - success?? being hundreds of thousands in debt is your version of success. with a live in partner until the relationship has become permanent.

Permanent? with divorce rates in the mid 40%....


Ridiculous.

Tom99

Comms69 wrote: »

Permanent? with divorce rates in the mid 40%..Ridiculous.

[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]Which is exactly why the OP is being cautious.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If it is so easy to save a deposit and get a mortgage why is the OP's boyfriend still renting?[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, sans-serif]If the boyfriend paid £300pm rent to the OP that would be a big saving on his current rent so both sides benefit.[/FONT]