Other half is moving in, how much rent should I charge?

diystarter7

baser999 said:

I lived with a friend in her property years ago and at one point we both found ourselves unemployed and for a short while both claiming benefits. DHSS weren't convinced we weren’t in a relationship to the extent they arranged a visit to discuss how we bought and paid for shopping, used washing machine, did we eat meals or spend leisure time together etc. 😱

Hello
That can happen but it should not have worried you as you was doing nothing wrong/lying etc.
OP, IMHO is best to test the water for a few weeks and see what this results in and take it from there.

Thnaks

Gavin83

Scorpio33 said:

Gavin83 said:

Mark300zx said:

elsien said:

Why would you be charging rent? 

They are a partner not a lodger. 

You would be paying your mortgage anyway and you don’t want them to have a claim on the property so whatever between you, you feel as a sensible split of the day to day bills, food et cetera.

That may leave them with more spending on a day-to-day basis, but it leaves you with a property which hopefully is appreciating in value and where you have security but they don’t because you can throw them out at any point. Swings and roundabouts.

Rent is a term for a contribution to living there, they may buy a property to rent out while with me so they would benefit from that, also if they are a partner shouldn't they share costs but not wish to be reimbursed for the benefit of moving in?

As others have pointed out you can't legally charge a partner rent as they're neither a tenant nor a lodger. Therefore any money they pay across is a contribution to the household. That contribution to the household entitles them to a potential claim should things go wrong. If you don't like this idea (and I don't blame you) then don't charge 'rent'.

My suggestion would second what others have said. Ask them to pay their 'rent' into a savings account. If you stay together then they have a pot of money to contribute to a mortgage/wedding/whatever in the future. If you split then they've a pot of money to set themselves up again and you're free to kick them out guilt free and safe in the knowledge they've no claim on your property.

Bit in bold is incorrect. You can call it what you like, but they only have a claim on your house if they have contributed towards the mortgage and there is an intention that this will give rise to a claim on the property. This is usually proven by the other partner paying the mortgage company directly (rather than given you money). The only other way a claim can be bought about is if the other partner has contributed substantially to home improvements - for example getting a loan for an extension. Merely contributing to the household doesn't give them a right to make a claim.

Morally though, you would want to make it "fair", which is always a contencious issue and depends on your relative earnings, financial commitments, even what they used to pay in rent coudl come into it.

I can't work out if you're misinterpreting what I'm saying or we disagree. I'm not referring to bills. Of course the person living there should be contributing half towards the bills and that doesn't entitle them to a claim on the property. However to follow your lead the bit in bold is incorrect. There's no reason they have to pay the mortgage company direct. If they're contributing to the mortgage, either directly or indirectly then there's the potential for a claim. After all, as already pointed out you can't charge a partner rent. They're neither a tenant nor a lodger.

I'm sticking by everything I wrote in my original post. It's entirely up to the OP which advice they follow.

Scorpio33

Gavin83 said:

Scorpio33 said:

Gavin83 said:

Mark300zx said:

elsien said:

Why would you be charging rent? 

They are a partner not a lodger. 

You would be paying your mortgage anyway and you don’t want them to have a claim on the property so whatever between you, you feel as a sensible split of the day to day bills, food et cetera.

That may leave them with more spending on a day-to-day basis, but it leaves you with a property which hopefully is appreciating in value and where you have security but they don’t because you can throw them out at any point. Swings and roundabouts.

Rent is a term for a contribution to living there, they may buy a property to rent out while with me so they would benefit from that, also if they are a partner shouldn't they share costs but not wish to be reimbursed for the benefit of moving in?

As others have pointed out you can't legally charge a partner rent as they're neither a tenant nor a lodger. Therefore any money they pay across is a contribution to the household. That contribution to the household entitles them to a potential claim should things go wrong. If you don't like this idea (and I don't blame you) then don't charge 'rent'.

My suggestion would second what others have said. Ask them to pay their 'rent' into a savings account. If you stay together then they have a pot of money to contribute to a mortgage/wedding/whatever in the future. If you split then they've a pot of money to set themselves up again and you're free to kick them out guilt free and safe in the knowledge they've no claim on your property.

Bit in bold is incorrect. You can call it what you like, but they only have a claim on your house if they have contributed towards the mortgage and there is an intention that this will give rise to a claim on the property. This is usually proven by the other partner paying the mortgage company directly (rather than given you money). The only other way a claim can be bought about is if the other partner has contributed substantially to home improvements - for example getting a loan for an extension. Merely contributing to the household doesn't give them a right to make a claim.

Morally though, you would want to make it "fair", which is always a contencious issue and depends on your relative earnings, financial commitments, even what they used to pay in rent coudl come into it.

I can't work out if you're misinterpreting what I'm saying or we disagree. I'm not referring to bills. Of course the person living there should be contributing half towards the bills and that doesn't entitle them to a claim on the property. However to follow your lead the bit in bold is incorrect. There's no reason they have to pay the mortgage company direct. If they're contributing to the mortgage, either directly or indirectly then there's the potential for a claim. After all, as already pointed out you can't charge a partner rent. They're neither a tenant nor a lodger.

I'm sticking by everything I wrote in my original post. It's entirely up to the OP which advice they follow.

Yes I think we agree that if they are contributing to the mortgage (and so that gives a share of the house), yes but its very difficult to proove. Any moneys paid to the owner unless properly agreed upon and clearly identified as to what they are can be argued that they are contribution for bills or rent.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/apr/30/my-partner-wants-me-to-pay-him-rent-equity-house 

Gavin83

I think it would be quite easy to prove. Let's say for example you move into a house that your partner owns. Bills come to £400 a month, the mortgage £1000 a month. If you have a record of paying your partner £200 a month then it's fairly clear that's for a split of the bills. If you have a record of paying your partner £700 a month then it's fairly obvious both the bills and the mortgage payment has been split.

I would say anything above the £200 payment as mentioned above could be considered as a payment towards the mortgage, unless there's something else in the mix like car finance, etc. You can't charge a partner rent. They're a partner, not a lodger.

Mojisola

Scorpio33 said:

Yes I think we agree that if they are contributing to the mortgage (and so that gives a share of the house), yes but its very difficult to proove. Any moneys paid to the owner unless properly agreed upon and clearly identified as to what they are can be argued that they are contribution for bills or rent.

I think the onus is on the incomer to prove that money paid to the homeowner wasn't a share of the mortgage and that there was no intention to build up an interest in the property, rather than the other way round.

michelle09

JReacher1 said:

michelle09 said:

When my partner and I moved in this was the deal we had:

 Partner paid 50% of all bills including service charge and food but not mortgage. Partner would put equivalent of mortgage into a savings pot.

If we got married then the pot and my partner's savings would be put into the flat and we would become joint owners (both benefit). If we split then I could tell my partner to leave same day without guilt as they should have had a pot built up and could have checked into a hotel.

By splitting bills you both get a financial benefit. Your partner is giving up all rights by moving in. Ultimately if you charge your partner any of your mortgage costs they could try and claim an interest. They may or may not win but it isn't a risk I would take.

But I wouldn't move in with a partner who was trying to profit from me either! 

How did this work out in the end?

We got married, bought a place as joint tenants with our combined savings. Been married 8 years now so if we were to divorce we'd probably be at a 50:50 starting point (no children). I might have felt differently about it if there had been a split.

london21

Business and relationships don't mix.

why not get to know them and build trust first.

They can contribute towards the bills, but your question about the most you can charge raises some questions. 

Peterrr

How about your partner paying half of the living expenses (excluding property related as previously discussed), and additionally using some of their saved accommodation costs to pay for a holiday each year?

pickledonionspaceraider

How new a relationship are we talking here?  I have made the mistake of moving in far too quickly, in the past

You have got to talk to them and discuss financial and other expectations - a discussion between you two must be had at this stage, before moving in

MalMonroe

Mark300zx said:

It's a new relationship and the question is what's the most I can charge without them having a claim on my property if it all goes west?

Is other-half really moving in? What if it all goes south from their point of view? They'll be homeless. 
You say it's a new relationship - but it seems to me that there's no love, romance or trust at all. Is it meant to be a romantic relationship?

Have you thought how other-half might feel if they saw this post? I know how I'd feel and I'd be dumping my new partner tout-suite.

Other half is probably much better off staying where they are and taking this relationship slowly - if at all - because it really hasn't warmed up yet and if rent and fear of property loss are the first considerations, I'd say it's pretty much doomed from hereon in.