Ex demanding money from lodgers

Grumpy_chap

Carlos4646 said:

When we split up a few years ago, my ex leant me £28,000 of our 50/50 equity, so I could buy a 3 bedroom house for myself and 2 young adult children. The deal was I paid him back when I sold the house or when/if I moved a new partner in.
one of my children has moved out and I occasionally have short term lodgers. He is now asking for a cut of the lodgers money I get. He wants 50%, which isn’t going to paying off the debt. 
This was not the agreement. Nothing is legally binding about the agreement, but he has my word. 
I don’t want to give him any lodgers money, neither am I ready to sell up. He is being very persistent. 
What would others do in my situation. 
Thanks

It seems quite possible that the ex-partner lent the OP the money to facilitate the 3-bedroom house on the understanding and expectation that would provide accommodation for the OP (1 bed room) plus the two children (1 bedroom each) so three bedrooms were required.  The ex-partner might well have had the real incentive to support the children rather than the OP.

One assume, if there is no a lodger, the need to support the children in this way no longer exists so the ex-partner may expect the house to be sold and the OP to downsize to a property that can be afforded.  (I accept smaller houses may not actually be that much cheaper, plus cost of move / sale.)

It may also be possible that the ex-partner is unconvinced that the lodger is purely that and nothing more.

Where are the children living now, given that there is a spare room available for the lodger?

General_Grant

Grumpy_chap said:

Carlos4646 said:

When we split up a few years ago, my ex leant me £28,000 of our 50/50 equity, so I could buy a 3 bedroom house for myself and 2 young adult children. The deal was I paid him back when I sold the house or when/if I moved a new partner in.
one of my children has moved out and I occasionally have short term lodgers. He is now asking for a cut of the lodgers money I get. He wants 50%, which isn’t going to paying off the debt. 
This was not the agreement. Nothing is legally binding about the agreement, but he has my word. 
I don’t want to give him any lodgers money, neither am I ready to sell up. He is being very persistent. 
What would others do in my situation. 
Thanks

It seems quite possible that the ex-partner lent the OP the money to facilitate the 3-bedroom house on the understanding and expectation that would provide accommodation for the OP (1 bed room) plus the two children (1 bedroom each) so three bedrooms were required.  The ex-partner might well have had the real incentive to support the children rather than the OP.

One assume, if there is no a lodger, the need to support the children in this way no longer exists so the ex-partner may expect the house to be sold and the OP to downsize to a property that can be afforded.  (I accept smaller houses may not actually be that much cheaper, plus cost of move / sale.)

It may also be possible that the ex-partner is unconvinced that the lodger is purely that and nothing more.

Where are the children living now, given that there is a spare room available for the lodger?

The OP you quoted said "one of my children has moved out".  No need for us to know where that person is living as they are adult.  Presumably the second is still living in the house.

Bookworm105

Grumpy_chap said:

Carlos4646 said:

When we split up a few years ago, my ex leant me £28,000 of our 50/50 equity, so I could buy a 3 bedroom house for myself and 2 young adult children. The deal was I paid him back when I sold the house or when/if I moved a new partner in.
one of my children has moved out and I occasionally have short term lodgers. He is now asking for a cut of the lodgers money I get. He wants 50%, which isn’t going to paying off the debt. 
This was not the agreement. Nothing is legally binding about the agreement, but he has my word. 
I don’t want to give him any lodgers money, neither am I ready to sell up. He is being very persistent. 
What would others do in my situation. 
Thanks

 given that there is a spare room available for the lodger?

does not alter the fact that a share of the lodger income is a moral debate, not an entitlement arising from the source of the purchase funds as defined in the "agreement" 

the funder is not a legal owner of the house / room, they have zero rights but are apparently aggravated that circumstances have changed but their money is not (YET) being returned.

ThisIsWeird

Grumpy_chap said:

Carlos4646 said:

When we split up a few years ago, my ex leant me £28,000 of our 50/50 equity, so I could buy a 3 bedroom house for myself and 2 young adult children. The deal was I paid him back when I sold the house or when/if I moved a new partner in.
one of my children has moved out and I occasionally have short term lodgers. He is now asking for a cut of the lodgers money I get. He wants 50%, which isn’t going to paying off the debt. 
This was not the agreement. Nothing is legally binding about the agreement, but he has my word. 
I don’t want to give him any lodgers money, neither am I ready to sell up. He is being very persistent. 
What would others do in my situation. 
Thanks

It seems quite possible that the ex-partner lent the OP the money to facilitate the 3-bedroom house on the understanding and expectation that would provide accommodation for the OP (1 bed room) plus the two children (1 bedroom each) so three bedrooms were required.  The ex-partner might well have had the real incentive to support the children rather than the OP.

One assume, if there is no a lodger, the need to support the children in this way no longer exists so the ex-partner may expect the house to be sold and the OP to downsize to a property that can be afforded.  (I accept smaller houses may not actually be that much cheaper, plus cost of move / sale.)

It may also be possible that the ex-partner is unconvinced that the lodger is purely that and nothing more.

Where are the children living now, given that there is a spare room available for the lodger?

Paying the money back when both children moved out was seemingly not one of the conditions of this deal. That might seem strange given that the ex's main incentive for the kind loan appeared to be to provide for the kids, but we all know that adult kids rarely permanently move out...
Had this also been a condition, then the ex would now be half-way to getting his money back. It wasn't, tho', and he has zero other rights.
If Carlos could afford to do so, tho', I'd hope they'd start to use this extra income for the obvious ethical purpose.

BargainJunky

Assuming it is your house and in your name only I would politely tell the ex to do one.  The agreement looks as if they were only due to get the money they lent you back if you sold it or moved a new partner in and as that has not happened the money is not due to be returned yet.

Bigphil1474

OP, maybe think of it from their angle and see what you would do. Possibly the ex sees the 'lodger' as not really a lodger, or maybe they need the money for something else. It was a bad idea to do this informally, but let's face it, they did you a big favour. Maybe coming up with some sort of repayment plan would reduce the hassling the ex does and eases your life going forward. Legally they have no claim, but morally I think it's probably better to do the right thing, IMO. 

Grumpy_chap

General_Grant said:

The OP you quoted said "one of my children has moved out".  No need for us to know where that person is living as they are adult.  Presumably the second is still living in the house.

Thank you - I did miss that even though it was right there in plain sight.

I had wondered whether the two children were now sharing a room.
It might still have a bearing if the one that has moved out is now living with the OP's ex-partner.

Carlos4646

Thank you all So much for your reply’s. Interesting to see different opinions on this.

Kim_13

Legally I would say that he would be entitled to a share of the lodger money proportionate to what £28,000 was as a value of the house at the time you bought it. That's unlikely to be 50%, so anything beyond his 'share' of the lodger money up to 50% should come off the debt. If he's not happy with that he can have x% only and £28,000 when the house is sold or a new partner moves in. If he did not loan it as the £28,000 was either (say) 10% of the house and he should get 10% when sold, or with interest applied, then that is on him. The bright side is he has no tax to pay/income to declare with the arrangement as is (except on the lodger money that isn't repaying the money you owe him.)

Keep a record of how any payments you make to him are apportioned. It doesn't seem that he's got anything to go legal with, but just in case.. 

marcia_

Kim_13 said:

Legally I would say that he would be entitled to a share of the lodger money proportionate to what £28,000 was as a value of the house at the time you bought it. That's unlikely to be 50%, so anything beyond his 'share' of the lodger money up to 50% should come off the debt. If he's not happy with that he can have x% only and £28,000 when the house is sold or a new partner moves in. If he did not loan it as the £28,000 was either (say) 10% of the house and he should get 10% when sold, or with interest applied, then that is on him.

Keep a record of how any payments you make to him are apportioned. It doesn't seem that he's got anything to go legal with, but just in case.. 

 Which Law would that be then?