Boyfriend moving into the flat I own - rights?

Marvel1

swingaloo wrote: »

Erm, isn't the sexual relief a 2 way thing?

If he was in his own place he would have to pay his bills, grocery, water, electric, gas etc plus his rent on top. Are you suggesting she should be allowing him to live rent free and provide sexual relief for him as well?

If he was renting as a tenent he would have a lot more rights and not shown the door of anything if happens pronto.

[Deleted User]

swingaloo wrote: »

Erm, isn't the sexual relief a 2 way thing?

If he was in his own place he would have to pay his bills, grocery, water, electric, gas etc plus his rent on top. Are you suggesting she should be allowing him to live rent free and provide sexual relief for him as well?

You're comparing apples with oranges. Being someone's bidey-in is very different from having an AST with the rights and protections that come with it.

You also need to remember that the whole mortgage payment isn't a sunk cost of living, the capital portion is like putting money in a savings account.

Edit to add:

I had a quick search on the board and found this thread where someone has moved their bf into her property, taken great lengths to ensure it remains her property, and was then surprised the bf starting acting like a lodger after being treated like one.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5725005/cohabiting

Mojisola

Lover_of_Lycra wrote: »

You also need to remember that the whole mortgage payment isn't a sunk cost of living, the capital portion is like putting money in a savings account.

But he won't see any benefit from that and he has absolutely no legal protection so could be evicted at a moment's notice.

[Deleted User]

Mojisola wrote: »

But he won't see any benefit from that and he has absolutely no legal protection so could be evicted at a moment's notice.

Yes, I know. That was the point I was trying to make. The OP is building up equity not losing the whole value of the mortgage payment each month.

[Deleted User]

unholyangel wrote: »

No, they're telling it like how they think it should be according to their own opinions and beliefs rather than anything factual.

Its often stated on this board that you can only charge your partner half the bills and if you charge anything extra then they will be gaining an interest in your property. Which isn't correct at all. For a start, they could still make that claim even if you're not charging them rent.

How could someone make a claim if they haven’t made any capital contributions or do you mean someone could make a claim even if it baseless because (s)he had never made any capital contributions?

unholyangel

Lover_of_Lycra wrote: »

How could someone make a claim if they haven’t made any capital contributions or do you mean someone could make a claim even if it baseless because (s)he had never made any capital contributions?

My whole point is that when paying rent, they're not making a capital contribution either. But that doesn't stop the person (where there is no written agreement) later trying to claim that the £x they paid for rent/bills/whatever was actually paid on the mutual understanding they would be gaining an interest in the property. So yes, about it being baseless.

When there's a written agreement explicitly stating that they are not gaining any interest in the property whatsoever then it makes it very difficult for them later to claim that they were paying the money on the mutual understanding that they would be gaining an interest.

hazyjo

unholyangel wrote: »

My whole point is that when paying rent, they're not making a capital contribution either. But that doesn't stop the person (where there is no written agreement) later trying to claim that the £x they paid for rent/bills/whatever was actually paid on the mutual understanding they would be gaining an interest in the property. So yes, about it being baseless.

When there's a written agreement explicitly stating that they are not gaining any interest in the property whatsoever then it makes it very difficult for them later to claim that they were paying the money on the mutual understanding that they would be gaining an interest.

I think the key difference is that they are a couple. It's wise to leave a paper trail (be it partners, lodgers, tenants or whatever).

unholyangel

hazyjo wrote: »

I think the key difference is that they are a couple. It's wise to leave a paper trail (be it partners, lodgers, tenants or whatever).

Key difference to people on here perhaps. But not in law.

[Deleted User]

unholyangel wrote: »

Key difference to people on here perhaps. But not in law.

It's an important point in law that both parties are, "making a life together."

My forum search for co-habiting couples uncovered this gem from 2011 where someone was rogering the lodger. :rotfl:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3570527/having-sex-with-someone-whose-on-benefit

unholyangel

Lover_of_Lycra wrote: »

It's an important point in law that both parties are, "making a life together."

My forum search for co-habiting couples uncovered this gem from 2011 where someone was rogering the lodger. :rotfl:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3570527/having-sex-with-someone-whose-on-benefit

Only in marriage. There is a legal financial responsibility created in marriage that simply doesn't exist in cohabiting couples.

A friend, family member or even a complete stranger (at least when they first moved in) can make the same claim, that they have an interest in the property. There are no special rights for boyfriend/girlfriend.