Should my partner be charging me rent?

Herzlos

dollypug123 said:

Hi all, thanks for your thoughtful replies to my post. 

My partner's argument for me giving him money on top of running costs is that he'll be subsidising my life (I'm living in his home for less than it would cost me on the private market), so why should I not also subsidise his life by giving him cash? 

You're already subsidizing him by splitting the bills, and presumably doing more than your fair share of domestic work.

What he's wanting to do is profit from you. Which isn't really something that happens in a fair relationship.

If he was putting your 'rent' towards a communal pot for maintenance, upgrades, deposit on a new place, or household expenses like you'd suggested I'd understand it. But he's viewing you as a short term lodger and not a part of the family. .

dannim12345

He shouldn’t be charging you imo but he’s taking the mick by also having a room mate.  If by you moving in he got rid of his roomate and lost that income I think it would be more understandable. 

I suppose it will mean you have more spare money than you would if you rented elsewhere but he and his house will have lower bills.  

If you are buying designer clothes with that extra money and he doesn’t like it (not saying you would), then maybe you aren’t meant to be. 

Tabieth

dollypug123 said:

Tabieth said:

dollypug123 said:

Hi all, thanks for your thoughtful replies to my post. 

My partner's argument for me giving him money on top of running costs is that he'll be subsidising my life (I'm living in his home for less than it would cost me on the private market), so why should I not also subsidise his life by giving him cash? 

I’d say that’s a very reasonable stance for two people who share a flat, not for a couple in a relationship. 

I agree with you. I'm interested to hear your reasoning? 

I guess my reasoning is a couple would share, not necessarily equally but fairly and in a way both are happy with. So rent, mortgage, bills, meals out etc. are divided up between the couple. It’s the same with chores and life admin. One person may be better at DIY, the other at finances. So it’s not a case of an exact 50:50 split, rather a partnership with both working together. Being in a couple is all about “subsidising” each other’s life, it’s cheaper to live as a couple than as two single people. 

In this case there is no mortgage or rent so there’s nothing to split up there. It’s totally reasonable and fair to share the costs of bills, meals out, maintenance, etc.. That’s normal for a healthy relationship. But for one partner to say “I live rent / mortgage free but you can’t” just isn’t on imo.

I know you didn’t post for relationship advice. But this rings such alarms for me. You may or may not want to end the relationship but please do make sure you are financially protected. Good luck! 

FlorayG

dollypug123 said:

Hi all, thanks for your thoughtful replies to my post. 

My partner's argument for me giving him money on top of running costs is that he'll be subsidising my life (I'm living in his home for less than it would cost me on the private market), so why should I not also subsidise his life by giving him cash? 

Because he's NOT subsidising you. He's not paying out a mortgage or rent. If you subsidise someone you support them financially by giving them money; if you didn't live there he would be no worse off rent/mortgage wise than he is now, so he's not subsidising you.
If you give him money you are subsidising him. It can't happen both ways

caprikid1

Tabieth said:

dollypug123 said:

Hi all, thanks for your thoughtful replies to my post. 

My partner's argument for me giving him money on top of running costs is that he'll be subsidising my life (I'm living in his home for less than it would cost me on the private market), so why should I not also subsidise his life by giving him cash? 

I’d say that’s a very reasonable stance for two people who share a flat, not for a couple in a relationship. 

I've been in the same situation as the OP. I charged my partner rent purely because I was renting every room out and she had a room to keep all her things in and as a dressing room etc, that room normally would have been rented out, there was no additional bills etc as everyone was just paying for a room.

She came from a flat so was saving money, I was no better or worse off.

The OP is not reducing the partners rent coming in by living there so it is a bonus.

FlorayG

Tabieth said:

dollypug123 said:

Hi all, thanks for your thoughtful replies to my post. 

My partner's argument for me giving him money on top of running costs is that he'll be subsidising my life (I'm living in his home for less than it would cost me on the private market), so why should I not also subsidise his life by giving him cash? 

I’d say that’s a very reasonable stance for two people who share a flat, not for a couple in a relationship. 

I completely agree with this. If two people share a flat and one of them owns the flat, the second person is a lodger. They have no personal relationship, the second person is there purely for the financial benefit of the flat owner and the flat owner puts up with the inconvenience of having another person there purely for the sake of the income. Clearly different to being in a relationship

prowla

silvercar said:

Devils advocate: maybe he wants to see that you are with him because you like/ love him rather than see him as a way to a free home? 

The thought had crossed my mind.

dollypug123 said:

Hi all, thanks for your thoughtful replies to my post. 

My partner's argument for me giving him money on top of running costs is that he'll be subsidising my life (I'm living in his home for less than it would cost me on the private market), so why should I not also subsidise his life by giving him cash? 

Effectively, are you freeloading.

Tabieth

prowla said:

silvercar said:

Devils advocate: maybe he wants to see that you are with him because you like/ love him rather than see him as a way to a free home? 

The thought had crossed my mind.

dollypug123 said:

Hi all, thanks for your thoughtful replies to my post. 

My partner's argument for me giving him money on top of running costs is that he'll be subsidising my life (I'm living in his home for less than it would cost me on the private market), so why should I not also subsidise his life by giving him cash? 

Effectively, are you freeloading.

How nasty. The OP isn’t freeloading and has offered to contribute / pay their share of bills. 

kimwp

Perhaps you and he could consider this-
He's not losing out on rental income by you living there, so if you pay a share of the bills, he is no worse off financially by you living there (probably better off as you'd be paying a portion of the standing charges)

If you pay rent and stay together, then the rent money stays within your finances (though he has control of it, less stable situation for you)
If you pay rent, and you split up, he retains the rent money and you don't have savings. Yes, it would be worse if you were renting, but if you were not with him, that would leave you more free to pursue opportunities elsewhere (including a partner who doesn't seek to take money from his partner)

Yes, you are better off paying half rent to him than full rent to someone else, but a loving partner who has the good fortune of financial security doesn't seek to take money from his partner who has less financial security. 

We had someone on the debt board whose husband expected her to pay 50% towards everything, even when her pay went to nothing on maternity leave. Your boyfriend reminds me of that guy.

saajan_12

Marvel1 said:

saajan_12 said:

FlorayG said:

I think he's a bit bl00dy entitled and I wouldn't be staying there. He's been gifted the flat and wants to charge his partner rent? That's not a relationship I would be pursuing. Share of bills, yes, fine, quite normal to expect you to pay 1/3 the council tax and 1/3 the service charges. (A third because there are three people living there)
Never heard anything so outrageous I'd be on my bike ASAP

Same can be said the other way.. OP has a place to live and wants to pay 0 rent? That's not a relationship I would be pursuing. 

I would look at it as if they were both splitting rent on a room in a share house elsewhere, then they'd both pay £~350 each plus bills. The fact that its in a property he owns is between him and his family, why should OP benefit from a gift they didn't receive? 

But he can kick her out anytime, cann that happen in a share house elsewhere?

Yes.. look up lodger protections, aka none. 

FlorayG said:

dollypug123 said:

Hi all, thanks for your thoughtful replies to my post. 

My partner's argument for me giving him money on top of running costs is that he'll be subsidising my life (I'm living in his home for less than it would cost me on the private market), so why should I not also subsidise his life by giving him cash? 

Because he's NOT subsidising you. He's not paying out a mortgage or rent. If you subsidise someone you support them financially by giving them money; if you didn't live there he would be no worse off rent/mortgage wise than he is now, so he's not subsidising you.
If you give him money you are subsidising him. It can't happen both ways

Eh? Why is money anything special?? The partner is saving OP money that would otherwise be spent on rent. If I give a friend rides to work, I am subsidising their transport costs, despite not handing them money. 

Herzlos said:

dollypug123 said:

Hi all, thanks for your thoughtful replies to my post. 

My partner's argument for me giving him money on top of running costs is that he'll be subsidising my life (I'm living in his home for less than it would cost me on the private market), so why should I not also subsidise his life by giving him cash? 

You're already subsidizing him by splitting the bills, and presumably doing more than your fair share of domestic work.

What he's wanting to do is profit from you. Which isn't really something that happens in a fair relationship.

If he was putting your 'rent' towards a communal pot for maintenance, upgrades, deposit on a new place, or household expenses like you'd suggested I'd understand it. But he's viewing you as a short term lodger and not a part of the family. .

Eh? You seem to be creating your own scenarios. Normally people pay both bills AND rent, so paying one doesn't negate the other. Them both splitting bills subsidises eachother vs living separately. That has nothing to do with the partner subsidising the accommodation costs for nothing in return. That's unfair on the partner. 

Who said anything about doing more of the chores?