How much rent should I pay my partner?

hannah021

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. 

In reference to the fact a person would save some amount on the bills, that savings doesnt compare to a rent worth of savings. If I move in with someone i would save £1400 a month on my rental property, there is no chance, him saving on bills will exceed £100 per month. Besides the fact the bills increase with a new person coming in.

Atlas234

hannah021 said:

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. 

In reference to the fact a person would save some amount on the bills, that savings doesnt compare to a rent worth of savings. If I move in with someone i would save £1400 a month on my rental property, there is no chance, him saving on bills will exceed £100 per month. Besides the fact the bills increase with a new person coming in.

Agreed, the OP is essentially asking what is 'fair' and an arrangment where one partner benefits potentially to the tune of being 10's of thousands of pounds better off compared to the other partner is not a 'fair' distribution of the financial benefits of living together. 

herbertpug

What about the middle ground?
Half of all the household bills, and 50% of the interest only element on the mortgage. 
E.g. mortgage is £600 pcm of which £300 is repayment. Split the interest equally... No charge on "paying off the mortgage" but a reasonable contribution. 

saajan_12

Lots of things being confused here. 
1. On a repayment mortgage, payments = capital + interest. The capital portion should only be contributed to by the owner as thats moving their own money from a bank account to equity. However the interest is the cost of borrowing money before you earn it, to provide accommodation. The alternative is to wait until they have saved the total property price and rent in the meantime. This would also profit in a return on the deposit amount, which you don't get when its used to pay off the mortgage. To live in the property before this costs money, namely the interest + lost return on deposit. 

2. Is it fair to just share bills? Of course what is fair depends on the people involved, eg 50/50, or something relative to incomes, one person may be taking up more responsibilities in the home etc. Even paying £1 could be slightly less cost for the owner than if they lived alone, but I wouldn't call that fair. Paying half of bills is some benefit for the owner, but much more benefit for the non owner, which seems unfair to me. If you want to split living costs 50/50, then the living costs are bills + mortgage interest + lost return on equity. 

3. Rights of the non owner as a tenant / lodger / guest. Yes a tenant has protections from eviction, but they also have accomodation for the period they pay rent. So taking away the protections doesn't mean the rent should be 0. A lodger has the privacy of own room, but they also have shelter, somewhere to sleep, store belongings, cook, etc etc. Taking away the privacy doesn't mean the accommodation has 0 value. OP is presumably partaking in the hugs & kisses etc voluntarily, not because of an expectation in return for accommodation. They are free to leave at any time but while they stay they can still contribute to living costs (all costs not just bills). 

Takmon

hannah021 said:

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. 

In reference to the fact a person would save some amount on the bills, that savings doesnt compare to a rent worth of savings. If I move in with someone i would save £1400 a month on my rental property, there is no chance, him saving on bills will exceed £100 per month. Besides the fact the bills increase with a new person coming in.

I can see what your saying but if my partner had moved in with me, saved £1400 a month and then moved out after a year with £16,800 extra in their savings then so what?. I didn't lose anything, i still would have gained some money and had all the other  benefits of living with someone for that year.  

As they were moving into my house and the relationship was serious enough for that to happen then i was happy with that arrangement and i was the one who suggested it. Personally i don't think it would have felt right to be making a big profit from them but i can see why other people in different situations would feel otherwise.

katie91_2

I moved in with my partner a year ago in the same circumstances (albeit I like his apartment and we only lived a mile apart anyway).

His suggestion was that he continues to pay the mortgage and I pay half the bills. I put the equivalent amount he spends on the mortgage into a savings account - we’ve now had an offer accepted on a house we’re buying together and the money will go into the deposit or we’ll use it to buy furniture.

EmmyLou30

So long as both parties are happy, then being 100% equal and fair probably isn't relevant. Personally my now husband moved in with me, paid half the bills and half the mortgage. I was better off and he was too as it was cheaper than renting alone so we decided that was fair as we both benefitted fairly evenly.  

Whatever you decide you both have to be happy and not allow it to cause resentment. Some people on here seem to be happy to allow their other half to live rent free in their house with the logic they're no worse off, others like myself would resent their partner potentially walking off thousands of pounds better off for having had free accommodation while I only benefitted a few hundred quid as to me that felt unfair. Each to their own.  

jls85

There can be so many different versions of 'fair' OP, it really comes down to what you both feel is a decent deal. Me and my boyfriend are just about to enter into a fairly similar situation. I have just sold my house and will be moving in with him until we get a new house together in 7/8 months time. He has suggested that he continues to pay the mortgage and all bills on his flat (as he was doing anyway), and I will put all of the money I am saving from the fact I no longer have a house and bills myself into a joint savings account that will go towards our deposit. I'm well aware some people might think that's really unfair, as I technically have no formal outgoings now, but as we are saving every extra penny we have into a joint pot for our new house anyway, it doesn't really matter who pays for what in the end.
So the only question you really need to ask is what do you both think? 

Angela_D_3

jls85 said:

There can be so many different versions of 'fair' OP, it really comes down to what you both feel is a decent deal. Me and my boyfriend are just about to enter into a fairly similar situation. I have just sold my house and will be moving in with him until we get a new house together in 7/8 months time. He has suggested that he continues to pay the mortgage and all bills on his flat (as he was doing anyway), and I will put all of the money I am saving from the fact I no longer have a house and bills myself into a joint savings account that will go towards our deposit. I'm well aware some people might think that's really unfair, as I technically have no formal outgoings now, but as we are saving every extra penny we have into a joint pot for our new house anyway, it doesn't really matter who pays for what in the end.
So the only question you really need to ask is what do you both think? 

The key difference there is joint savings account. 

I’ve just seen this scenario go pear shaped far too often.  

Personally I wouldn’t live with anyone before marriage,  your in or your out in terms of making a financial commitment and doing so before a legal binding one is very messy.  Marriage was devised for a reason and it was nothing to do with a white dress and a cake 

Takmon

Angela_D_3 said:

jls85 said:

There can be so many different versions of 'fair' OP, it really comes down to what you both feel is a decent deal. Me and my boyfriend are just about to enter into a fairly similar situation. I have just sold my house and will be moving in with him until we get a new house together in 7/8 months time. He has suggested that he continues to pay the mortgage and all bills on his flat (as he was doing anyway), and I will put all of the money I am saving from the fact I no longer have a house and bills myself into a joint savings account that will go towards our deposit. I'm well aware some people might think that's really unfair, as I technically have no formal outgoings now, but as we are saving every extra penny we have into a joint pot for our new house anyway, it doesn't really matter who pays for what in the end.
So the only question you really need to ask is what do you both think? 

The key difference there is joint savings account. 

I’ve just seen this scenario go pear shaped far too often.  

Personally I wouldn’t live with anyone before marriage,  your in or your out in terms of making a financial commitment and doing so before a legal binding one is very messy.  Marriage was devised for a reason and it was nothing to do with a white dress and a cake 

I can't imagine marrying someone without living together first otherwise you could end up in a situation where the relationship is great when you live separately but you both have habits that make it not work when actually living together. Getting married and then living together is far more messy financially if it all goes wrong and then you need to get divorced as well.