How much rent should I pay my partner?

Angela_D_3

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I’m amazed at all those saying the OP should help pay off the partner’s mortgage when he doesn’t want her to have any kind of claim on the property. Do you people understand how repayment mortgages work? 

What a bit like renting .... my tenant has nothing to show for the rent he’s paid for the privilege of living in my house.  He doesn’t get to sleep with me eityer wgich May or not be an advantage.  At least in this situation there’s a chance they’ll marry and all the money she pays will be “theirs” one day but until he agrees to the legally binding contract she needs to contribute.  Threads like these give women a bad name.  I’d be advising my son to be wary.  

If in two years she decides he’s not for her she’s saved a nice little nest egg at his expense.  

It’s actually nothing like renting with an AST or PRT if you’re in Scotland. Given your previous posts on this forum I’m not in the least bit surprised you don’t know or understand the difference. 

It would be exactly like renting if she signed a rent a room type agreement which gives her some protection and prevents him going sponged off.  

[Deleted User]

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I’m amazed at all those saying the OP should help pay off the partner’s mortgage when he doesn’t want her to have any kind of claim on the property. Do you people understand how repayment mortgages work? 

What a bit like renting .... my tenant has nothing to show for the rent he’s paid for the privilege of living in my house.  He doesn’t get to sleep with me eityer wgich May or not be an advantage.  At least in this situation there’s a chance they’ll marry and all the money she pays will be “theirs” one day but until he agrees to the legally binding contract she needs to contribute.  Threads like these give women a bad name.  I’d be advising my son to be wary.  

If in two years she decides he’s not for her she’s saved a nice little nest egg at his expense.  

It’s actually nothing like renting with an AST or PRT if you’re in Scotland. Given your previous posts on this forum I’m not in the least bit surprised you don’t know or understand the difference. 

It would be exactly like renting if she signed a rent a room type agreement which gives her some protection and prevents him going sponged off.  

It's not even similar never mind exactly the same.  A partner moving in with you isn't a lodger, they aren't renting a room from you, and you wouldn't be living as two separate households.  

Angela_D_3

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I’m amazed at all those saying the OP should help pay off the partner’s mortgage when he doesn’t want her to have any kind of claim on the property. Do you people understand how repayment mortgages work? 

What a bit like renting .... my tenant has nothing to show for the rent he’s paid for the privilege of living in my house.  He doesn’t get to sleep with me eityer wgich May or not be an advantage.  At least in this situation there’s a chance they’ll marry and all the money she pays will be “theirs” one day but until he agrees to the legally binding contract she needs to contribute.  Threads like these give women a bad name.  I’d be advising my son to be wary.  

If in two years she decides he’s not for her she’s saved a nice little nest egg at his expense.  

It’s actually nothing like renting with an AST or PRT if you’re in Scotland. Given your previous posts on this forum I’m not in the least bit surprised you don’t know or understand the difference. 

It would be exactly like renting if she signed a rent a room type agreement which gives her some protection and prevents him going sponged off.  

It's not even similar never mind exactly the same.  A partner moving in with you isn't a lodger, they aren't renting a room from you, and you wouldn't be living as two separate households.  

Ok LL .... you seem to be determined to find a way to remove any protection from eityer party 
she moves in pays nothing he gets shafted,  she moves in pays nothing and she can be booted out in a heart beat.  

All logical alternatives are unacceptable to you.  Let’s hope they just get married and have done with it after reading all this.  

george4064

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I’m amazed at all those saying the OP should help pay off the partner’s mortgage when he doesn’t want her to have any kind of claim on the property. Do you people understand how repayment mortgages work? 

What a bit like renting .... my tenant has nothing to show for the rent he’s paid for the privilege of living in my house.  He doesn’t get to sleep with me eityer wgich May or not be an advantage.  At least in this situation there’s a chance they’ll marry and all the money she pays will be “theirs” one day but until he agrees to the legally binding contract she needs to contribute.  Threads like these give women a bad name.  I’d be advising my son to be wary.  

If in two years she decides he’s not for her she’s saved a nice little nest egg at his expense.  

It’s actually nothing like renting with an AST or PRT if you’re in Scotland. Given your previous posts on this forum I’m not in the least bit surprised you don’t know or understand the difference. 

It would be exactly like renting if she signed a rent a room type agreement which gives her some protection and prevents him going sponged off.  

It's not even similar never mind exactly the same.  A partner moving in with you isn't a lodger, they aren't renting a room from you, and you wouldn't be living as two separate households.  

Ok LL .... you seem to be determined to find a way to remove any protection from eityer party 
she moves in pays nothing he gets shafted,  she moves in pays nothing and she can be booted out in a heart beat.  

All logical alternatives are unacceptable to you.  Let’s hope they just get married and have done with it after reading all this.  

Protection for him is if she doesn’t pay contributions to the mortgage then she does not have any claim of interest in the property. Sorted.

She contributes to half the bills etc. Both are better off because they pay less than each paying bills in their own property, whether it be owned or rental. Sorted.

She’s saves a pre-agreed amount per month into a savings account, this amount could be equivalent to half the monthly mortgage payment or half the value rental of the property. If they stay together etc then this pot of money becomes their money, if they break up she has this money as a ‘breakaway fund’. Sorted.

These ‘rules’ give a fair outcome to both, whether they split up or stay together, get married etc. The ‘protection’ should come from these clear rules that they have both agreed to as well as their TRUST in each other. If they don’t trust each other then they probably shouldn’t be in a relationship, let alone moving in together! After all this is a relationship between two people who supposedly love each other, not a business transaction!

[Deleted User]

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I’m amazed at all those saying the OP should help pay off the partner’s mortgage when he doesn’t want her to have any kind of claim on the property. Do you people understand how repayment mortgages work? 

What a bit like renting .... my tenant has nothing to show for the rent he’s paid for the privilege of living in my house.  He doesn’t get to sleep with me eityer wgich May or not be an advantage.  At least in this situation there’s a chance they’ll marry and all the money she pays will be “theirs” one day but until he agrees to the legally binding contract she needs to contribute.  Threads like these give women a bad name.  I’d be advising my son to be wary.  

If in two years she decides he’s not for her she’s saved a nice little nest egg at his expense.  

It’s actually nothing like renting with an AST or PRT if you’re in Scotland. Given your previous posts on this forum I’m not in the least bit surprised you don’t know or understand the difference. 

It would be exactly like renting if she signed a rent a room type agreement which gives her some protection and prevents him going sponged off.  

It's not even similar never mind exactly the same.  A partner moving in with you isn't a lodger, they aren't renting a room from you, and you wouldn't be living as two separate households.  

Ok LL .... you seem to be determined to find a way to remove any protection from eityer party 
she moves in pays nothing he gets shafted,  she moves in pays nothing and she can be booted out in a heart beat.  

All logical alternatives are unacceptable to you.  Let’s hope they just get married and have done with it after reading all this.  

Quite the opposite in fact. There’s no question of building up beneficial ownership if you’re not contributing towards the mortgage and you’re not profiteering from your partner by getting them to repay the capital you borrowed. Both parties are protected. 

Takmon

Angela_D_3 said:

hol30something said:

@SallyDucati... The amount my other half wants to go on holiday.. it would definitely be cheaper paying the mortgage!!!! 
Absolutely, I think people are forgetting that we are in a loving relationship and neither of us want to swindle each other but similarly are just trying to protect our own interests of things did end badly.  Hopefully we will own our own joint home in the not too distant future. 

He’s not protecting his interests and you are swindling him.  Not very loving behaviour 

I don't understand why you think this? The OP has said they are going to pay half the bills.

Before my partner moved in i had to pay all my bills myself. Then when my partner moved in they paid an amount that covered half the bills but no amount for rent or towards the mortgage. So that means that i saved money compared to before so how was i being "swindled" ?

Atlas234

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I’m amazed at all those saying the OP should help pay off the partner’s mortgage when he doesn’t want her to have any kind of claim on the property. Do you people understand how repayment mortgages work? 

What a bit like renting .... my tenant has nothing to show for the rent he’s paid for the privilege of living in my house.  He doesn’t get to sleep with me eityer wgich May or not be an advantage.  At least in this situation there’s a chance they’ll marry and all the money she pays will be “theirs” one day but until he agrees to the legally binding contract she needs to contribute.  Threads like these give women a bad name.  I’d be advising my son to be wary.  

If in two years she decides he’s not for her she’s saved a nice little nest egg at his expense.  

It’s actually nothing like renting with an AST or PRT if you’re in Scotland. Given your previous posts on this forum I’m not in the least bit surprised you don’t know or understand the difference. 

It would be exactly like renting if she signed a rent a room type agreement which gives her some protection and prevents him going sponged off.  

It's not even similar never mind exactly the same.  A partner moving in with you isn't a lodger, they aren't renting a room from you, and you wouldn't be living as two separate households.  

Ok LL .... you seem to be determined to find a way to remove any protection from eityer party 
she moves in pays nothing he gets shafted,  she moves in pays nothing and she can be booted out in a heart beat.  

All logical alternatives are unacceptable to you.  Let’s hope they just get married and have done with it after reading all this.  

Quite the opposite in fact. There’s no question of building up beneficial ownership if you’re not contributing towards the mortgage and you’re not profiteering from your partner by getting them to repay the capital you borrowed. Both parties are protected. 

As an earlier poster pointed out mortgage repayments are largely interest more than a repayment of capital, especially in the earlier years. 
If one partner pays absolutley nothing towards housing costs then both partners interests are not protected.

If they split up say after 5 years the partner who was not contributing will have build up a nest egg of several thousand pounds based solely on exploiting the free accommodation provided the mortgage holder that they would not have had otherwise, had they had to foot their own housing costs. Where as the mortgage holder will of actually accrued only a small amount of equity in the property as the majority of the repayments will have been to service the interest.

People are free decide whatever arrangements they want obviously and there is no one size fits all, but under such an arrangement the none mortgage holder has a huge financial benefit compared to the mortgage holder

Takmon

Atlas234 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I’m amazed at all those saying the OP should help pay off the partner’s mortgage when he doesn’t want her to have any kind of claim on the property. Do you people understand how repayment mortgages work? 

What a bit like renting .... my tenant has nothing to show for the rent he’s paid for the privilege of living in my house.  He doesn’t get to sleep with me eityer wgich May or not be an advantage.  At least in this situation there’s a chance they’ll marry and all the money she pays will be “theirs” one day but until he agrees to the legally binding contract she needs to contribute.  Threads like these give women a bad name.  I’d be advising my son to be wary.  

If in two years she decides he’s not for her she’s saved a nice little nest egg at his expense.  

It’s actually nothing like renting with an AST or PRT if you’re in Scotland. Given your previous posts on this forum I’m not in the least bit surprised you don’t know or understand the difference. 

It would be exactly like renting if she signed a rent a room type agreement which gives her some protection and prevents him going sponged off.  

It's not even similar never mind exactly the same.  A partner moving in with you isn't a lodger, they aren't renting a room from you, and you wouldn't be living as two separate households.  

Ok LL .... you seem to be determined to find a way to remove any protection from eityer party 
she moves in pays nothing he gets shafted,  she moves in pays nothing and she can be booted out in a heart beat.  

All logical alternatives are unacceptable to you.  Let’s hope they just get married and have done with it after reading all this.  

Quite the opposite in fact. There’s no question of building up beneficial ownership if you’re not contributing towards the mortgage and you’re not profiteering from your partner by getting them to repay the capital you borrowed. Both parties are protected. 

As an earlier poster pointed out mortgage repayments are largely interest more than a repayment of capital, especially in the earlier years. 
If one partner pays absolutley nothing towards housing costs then both partners interests are not protected.

If they split up say after 5 years the partner who was not contributing will have build up a nest egg of several thousand pounds based solely on exploiting the free accommodation provided the mortgage holder that they would not have had otherwise, had they had to foot their own housing costs. Where as the mortgage holder will of actually accrued only a small amount of equity in the property as the majority of the repayments will have been to service the interest.

People are free decide whatever arrangements they want obviously and there is no one size fits all, but under such an arrangement the none mortgage holder has a huge financial benefit compared to the mortgage holder

So in my situation i owned a house and my partner moved in and paid half the bills so that saves me money. If my partner didn't move in then i would have still had to pay all the housing costs and all the bills so by them moving in i am better off and my partner is also better off. 

So what if they save more money than i do? I didn't want them to move in to be financially better off and make money from them and if anyone wants a partner to move in purely for this reason then they really should reconsider if it's a good idea. 

Atlas234

Takmon said:

Atlas234 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I’m amazed at all those saying the OP should help pay off the partner’s mortgage when he doesn’t want her to have any kind of claim on the property. Do you people understand how repayment mortgages work? 

What a bit like renting .... my tenant has nothing to show for the rent he’s paid for the privilege of living in my house.  He doesn’t get to sleep with me eityer wgich May or not be an advantage.  At least in this situation there’s a chance they’ll marry and all the money she pays will be “theirs” one day but until he agrees to the legally binding contract she needs to contribute.  Threads like these give women a bad name.  I’d be advising my son to be wary.  

If in two years she decides he’s not for her she’s saved a nice little nest egg at his expense.  

It’s actually nothing like renting with an AST or PRT if you’re in Scotland. Given your previous posts on this forum I’m not in the least bit surprised you don’t know or understand the difference. 

It would be exactly like renting if she signed a rent a room type agreement which gives her some protection and prevents him going sponged off.  

It's not even similar never mind exactly the same.  A partner moving in with you isn't a lodger, they aren't renting a room from you, and you wouldn't be living as two separate households.  

Ok LL .... you seem to be determined to find a way to remove any protection from eityer party 
she moves in pays nothing he gets shafted,  she moves in pays nothing and she can be booted out in a heart beat.  

All logical alternatives are unacceptable to you.  Let’s hope they just get married and have done with it after reading all this.  

Quite the opposite in fact. There’s no question of building up beneficial ownership if you’re not contributing towards the mortgage and you’re not profiteering from your partner by getting them to repay the capital you borrowed. Both parties are protected. 

As an earlier poster pointed out mortgage repayments are largely interest more than a repayment of capital, especially in the earlier years. 
If one partner pays absolutley nothing towards housing costs then both partners interests are not protected.

If they split up say after 5 years the partner who was not contributing will have build up a nest egg of several thousand pounds based solely on exploiting the free accommodation provided the mortgage holder that they would not have had otherwise, had they had to foot their own housing costs. Where as the mortgage holder will of actually accrued only a small amount of equity in the property as the majority of the repayments will have been to service the interest.

People are free decide whatever arrangements they want obviously and there is no one size fits all, but under such an arrangement the none mortgage holder has a huge financial benefit compared to the mortgage holder

So in my situation i owned a house and my partner moved in and paid half the bills so that saves me money. If my partner didn't move in then i would have still had to pay all the housing costs and all the bills so by them moving in i am better off and my partner is also better off. 

So what if they save more money than i do? I didn't want them to move in to be financially better off and make money from them and if anyone wants a partner to move in purely for this reason then they really should reconsider if it's a good idea. 

I agree with you, the point I was making is more because people are describing helping a partner with housing costs as 'profiteering' off your partner, when it's actually the none mortgage owner who is financially benefitting most

hannah021

george4064 said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

Angela_D_3 said:

Lover_of_Lycra said:

I’m amazed at all those saying the OP should help pay off the partner’s mortgage when he doesn’t want her to have any kind of claim on the property. Do you people understand how repayment mortgages work? 

What a bit like renting .... my tenant has nothing to show for the rent he’s paid for the privilege of living in my house.  He doesn’t get to sleep with me eityer wgich May or not be an advantage.  At least in this situation there’s a chance they’ll marry and all the money she pays will be “theirs” one day but until he agrees to the legally binding contract she needs to contribute.  Threads like these give women a bad name.  I’d be advising my son to be wary.  

If in two years she decides he’s not for her she’s saved a nice little nest egg at his expense.  

It’s actually nothing like renting with an AST or PRT if you’re in Scotland. Given your previous posts on this forum I’m not in the least bit surprised you don’t know or understand the difference. 

It would be exactly like renting if she signed a rent a room type agreement which gives her some protection and prevents him going sponged off.  

It's not even similar never mind exactly the same.  A partner moving in with you isn't a lodger, they aren't renting a room from you, and you wouldn't be living as two separate households.  

Ok LL .... you seem to be determined to find a way to remove any protection from eityer party 
she moves in pays nothing he gets shafted,  she moves in pays nothing and she can be booted out in a heart beat.  

All logical alternatives are unacceptable to you.  Let’s hope they just get married and have done with it after reading all this.  

Protection for him is if she doesn’t pay contributions to the mortgage then she does not have any claim of interest in the property. Sorted.

She contributes to half the bills etc. Both are better off because they pay less than each paying bills in their own property, whether it be owned or rental. Sorted.

She’s saves a pre-agreed amount per month into a savings account, this amount could be equivalent to half the monthly mortgage payment or half the value rental of the property. If they stay together etc then this pot of money becomes their money, if they break up she has this money as a ‘breakaway fund’. Sorted.

These ‘rules’ give a fair outcome to both, whether they split up or stay together, get married etc. The ‘protection’ should come from these clear rules that they have both agreed to as well as their TRUST in each other. If they don’t trust each other then they probably shouldn’t be in a relationship, let alone moving in together! After all this is a relationship between two people who supposedly love each other, not a business transaction!

The way to protect the mortgage, is to have a solicitor agree a financial plan between them, where the move-in-partner declares no interest in the property, and not to have a freeloader living in someone's house for free because the home owner is worried about his mortgage! If you live with someone for 10yrs, they are bound to find something they call contribution, whether repairs, redecor, etc. Those worried about their properties from legal implication should protect it legally.

I like how you seem to believe that the move-in-partner running away with the full savings he/she piled up *purely because they are living in someone else's home, and couldnt have saved otherwise*, entitles the home owner to nothing of that savings!

PS: i dont care what the OP does and agrees, this discussion happens to be here in response to the fairness question. What they choose to do is private and personal.