Ex demanding money from lodgers

newsgroupmonkey_

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. 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.. 

The ex lent the OP £28,000 on the proviso that if another partner moves in or the house is sold, they get their money back. They do not hold a charge against the house.

It's a casual loan. They don't own any part of the OPs house.

Nothing is going legal.

Carlos4646

Thank you all So much for your reply’s. Interesting to see different opinions on this.
Just to confirm:
No formal agreement in place for the money, he said he’d trust me.
One of my young adult children has kind of moved out, so rent that room short term.
No fun having a lodger. Also what they pay is obviously not all profit.
The 28k he gave me was approximately 10% of value. Surely it would be fair to offer him 10% of lodgers income to come off of the debt. He won’t accept that though.
i do not owe him anything until we reach the selling/new partner agreement.
if he had his time again, i don’t think he would have given it me.
i am in my rights to tell him to get lost and stick to the agreement, however I hate the fact now that he hassles me and has that tie to me, therefore I think I may setup a payment plan of £100 a month with no entitlement to any lodgers money. I have no idea if he will accept this but if not then he will have to wait for the agreement to take place.
Thanks so much everyone 

ThisIsWeird

Carlos4646 said:

Thank you all So much for your reply’s. Interesting to see different opinions on this.
Just to confirm:
No formal agreement in place for the money, he said he’d trust me.
One of my young adult children has kind of moved out, so rent that room short term.
No fun having a lodger. Also what they pay is obviously not all profit.
The 28k he gave me was approximately 10% of value. Surely it would be fair to offer him 10% of lodgers income to come off of the debt. He won’t accept that though.
i do not owe him anything until we reach the selling/new partner agreement.
if he had his time again, i don’t think he would have given it me.
i am in my rights to tell him to get lost and stick to the agreement, however I hate the fact now that he hassles me and has that tie to me, therefore I think I may setup a payment plan of £100 a month with no entitlement to any lodgers money. I have no idea if he will accept this but if not then he will have to wait for the agreement to take place.
Thanks so much everyone 

Rightly or wrongly, ethically or no, retrospectively considered or whatevs, the deal you made remains.

I presume he did so 'cos he was thoughtful and kind? Well, he needs to carry on being so. It does not serve him well to now come over all petulant.

I guess it was trusting on both sides to do this only verbally, but that's what happened, and you hold all the aces - £28k's worth. :-)

I would strongly suggest that you do not allow him to pressurise you in any way. Your intention was and is to repay him as per the agreement, and if you wish to begin that process sooner, then that's entirely your call, but I'd strongly suggest that what you do is to transfer any extra you may have into a completely separate account labelled 'twit', that only you have access to. Now and then - when it's a nice round sum - you can tell him the balance, and offer to transfer it to him - on the firm, written basis, that it's part of the payback. If he refuses, just shrug and say, "Fair enuff".

The total amount to repay is £28k. That ain't changing.

If he argues, just ask him to 'remind you both what the agreement was'. Insist he answers. Ask him 'what has changed?', and 'how can you try and change the agreement when I'm not?' 'Where did you get the right to do so?'

He was kind, but now he's being unreasonable. Don't let one colour your response to the other.

You clearly have no way of repaying this other than by selling up, or a new partner coming into your life who has that money, or by slowly saving it up? In which case, feel no pressure.

Bookworm105

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. 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.. 

I'd say what are your legal qualifications to make that gem of a statement

Schwarzwald

Legally, rather shaky and unclear grounds to make these demands.
Probably the loan was given in a low-interest environment, now with rates at 5-6%, he might feel that he is missing out on some £2k interest per year alone.

i think it comes down to .... do you need the lodger money to cover your household costs?

if not, and while legally your deal doesnt seem to require it, i think morally (he seemed to help you out back then with a lot of trust) it would be the right thing to do to use the lodger income, to the extent possible for you, to start repaying back the loan amount little by little.

But legally, you probably dont have to, just a question what kind of relationship you like to retain with your ex partner, too? A constructive and fair one or one boiled down to legalities?

Bookworm105

Carlos4646 said:

Thank you all So much for your reply’s. Interesting to see different opinions on this.
Just to confirm:
No formal agreement in place for the money, he said he’d trust me.
One of my young adult children has kind of moved out, so rent that room short term.
No fun having a lodger. Also what they pay is obviously not all profit.
The 28k he gave me was approximately 10% of value. Surely it would be fair to offer him 10% of lodgers income to come off of the debt. He won’t accept that though.
i do not owe him anything until we reach the selling/new partner agreement.
if he had his time again, i don’t think he would have given it me.
i am in my rights to tell him to get lost and stick to the agreement, however I hate the fact now that he hassles me and has that tie to me, therefore I think I may setup a payment plan of £100 a month with no entitlement to any lodgers money. I have no idea if he will accept this but if not then he will have to wait for the agreement to take place.
Thanks so much everyone 

as you show, this is a moral debate and there are always 2 sides to those

we assume they are also the ex's children. We assume there is no formal marriage heading towards legal divorce and a court deciding who gets what. We have no interest in whether the split is mutual or acrimonious, but we can see that....

the ex chose to financially help you after the split. the ex did so on "generous" terms since there is no interest on the money loaned, and the repayment date is floating as it is based on either you selling or someone else becoming the financial support. As such the ex's loan will lose money due to the effects of inflation when it finally gets paid back.

whether £28k loaned for an unquantifiable period of time will (is) cause financial hardship to the ex is unknown. The fact is is a loan clearly shows it is not money the ex can utterly do without. The fact one of the repayment terms foresaw a new partner scenario shows the ex was unwilling to see you "profit" from the situation by having free financial help for as long as you live there.

you got a property you may not otherwise have financially been able to. You now have all the responsibilities (and costs) of day to day childcare, the ex (apparently) does not (irrelevant if not the ex's kids?).

your financial circumstances have changed and (crucially) one of the children has moved out, meaning the property is now "oversized". It appears the ex's circumstances remain the same - anticipation of eventual repayment, but at a loss. 

1. the ex sees the lodger income as you making a profit from their money as you have not downsized and triggered the pay back. The ex thus wants a share of it as compensation for that ongoing delay. Not unreasonable morally, but without any legal foundation. 

2. with your changed income situation the costs of a house move are prohibitive, so you are staying put. The lodger income thus replaces your employment income and as such has no bearing on the loan and is thus morally reasonable.

1 and 2 are simply moral extremes. Any form of middle position between them (%) is down to an adult compromise

Kim_13

On reflection, not the best wording to have used and leaning more toward morally, though a court would consider what is fair to both parties where an agreement is lacking (he may for example have written loan in a payment reference, while not getting OP to sign anything.) 

Logically, someone who is single is likely to sell to downsize (triggering repayment) when their children leave home. No doubt he was fair when they separated because he didn't want to see OP and children that had been a part of his life to end up on a council waiting list or with the lack of security that comes with having to rent. Getting a lodger in is something that postpones that, further devaluing his £28K so from that angle I do think he is entitled to something. Although the counter point to that would be not until the second child leaves, as it would unsettle them to do so, especially if they may be working towards or taking GCSEs or A Levels currently (that delay could have been reasonably foreseen when he loaned the money.)

He shouldn't be moving goalposts, but if he feels that the lodger wasn't in the spirit of the agreement, I can sort of see why he would be upset.

Jenniefour

Here's another perspective. What if the 28k had been loaned by the bank? Would the bank be entitled to some of the lodgers rent? No, of course not - and it wouldn't be any of their business either. This looks more like OP's ex  might be struggling with understanding/getting to grips with how the boundaries have changed since the relationship as partners ended and, in particular, OP's right to make choices that no longer need OP's ex's agreement, approval or involvement.  There are some/many things in OP's life the ex no longer has a say in/any control over - quite properly.  At the same time, the signs (like getting a lodger) of an ex's newly gained independence after a relationship ends are often difficult, painful and can be hard to accept.

The relationship has changed from partners who live together to co parents of two children who no longer live together and boundary/control issues are emerging  - the ex is now trying to attach strings to the very clear informal agreement and/or get involved inappropriately in OP's life and OP is trying in some way to accommodate this.  Not a brilliant way forwards - but sitting down together and having a thoughtful, kind and honest discussion about the challenges of now no longer being partners might be very helpful indeed.  

BoGoF

Jenniefour said:

Here's another perspective. What if the 28k had been loaned by the bank? Would the bank be entitled to some of the lodgers rent? No, of course not - and it wouldn't be any of their business either. This looks more like OP's ex  might be struggling with understanding/getting to grips with how the boundaries have changed since the relationship as partners ended and, in particular, OP's right to make choices that no longer need OP's ex's agreement, approval or involvement.  There are some/many things in OP's life the ex no longer has a say in/any control over - quite properly.  At the same time, the signs (like getting a lodger) of an ex's newly gained independence after a relationship ends are often difficult, painful and can be hard to accept.

A poor analogy, the bank isn't going to wait years for repayment are they?

Personally I think the ex has got a raw deal out of this. The original £28k lent is not worth that now

subjecttocontract

I think the problem is that people struggle to say no.
If you want to pay do it. If you don't, say no. If he continues to harass you call the police.