Should my partner be charging me rent?

newsgroupmonkey_

saajan_12 said:

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? 

It's a partner !!!!!!. Someone they're sharing a bed with.

Not a friend or a lift share.

MeteredOut

The way I see it, the partner is not losing out by having the OP stay there, since the OP is sharing bills.

But, the OP is saving money by staying there.

So, the partner is saying "I want some of what you're saving".

OP needs to decide if that's the sort of relationship they want to be in.

I would add that we don't know the other finances of both the OP and the partner. If, for example, the OP is more financially well off (more income, more savings etc), than the partner, or the partner is struggling financially month-on-month but the OP is not, then taking affordability into account, I can see an argument for the OP paying.

FlorayG

MeteredOut said:

The way I see it, the partner is not losing out by having the OP stay there, since the OP is sharing bills.

But, the OP is saving money by staying there.

So, the partner is saying "I want some of what you're saving".

The partner of course is also saving as not paying any rent or mortgage

kimwp

FlorayG said:

MeteredOut said:

The way I see it, the partner is not losing out by having the OP stay there, since the OP is sharing bills.

But, the OP is saving money by staying there.

So, the partner is saying "I want some of what you're saving".

The partner of course is also saving as not paying any rent or mortgage

But not as a result of having the partner move in.

WIAWSNB

The flat owner's current situation is:

He owns the flat outright, with no mortgage. (Yes, he was given the flat, but that's largely moot - except it makes him appear even more entitled and mean...)

He has a spare room. He rents this out. That's as much as he can 'make' from his flat, unless he prostitutes himself.

He's in a relationship, and they have decided to try living together. Moving in together is a huge move, and that's when you really get to know someone.

She, rightly, agrees to share the living expenses with him, presumably 50:50. This saves the owner a shedload. He now has a flat, no mortgage, an income from the spare room, and half his living costs met. Oh, and his beloved living with him, which I presume he wants.

That's it. To me, morally, that's it.

If he now charges her 'rent' above this, well I will refrain from what i think as it'll likely have me banned.

Her situation: she saves a large amount from not having to pay rent on her own property. She has, instead, offered to put a good proportion of these savings towards their future. She is not on any property ladder, so is in a kind of limbo - if they split up, she's back to square one, and he's back to his very much more secure ditto.

If she saves most of the money she'd have otherwise spent on rent, it'll be used either for their mutual enjoyment, their mutual future, or for her to get back into renting without so much pain should they split up.

He will always be a lot better off than her.

prowla

Tabieth said:

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. 

They're getting accommodation for free.

Ironically, I googled "freeloading" and this was the first response:

take advantage of other people's generosity without giving anything in return.

"why pay rent when you can freeload?"

Herzlos

saajan_12 said:

Who said anything about doing more of the chores? 

Educated guess based on seeing lots of similar stories over the years and knowing people like the OPs partner.

kimwp

prowla said:

Tabieth said:

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. 

They're getting accommodation for free.

Ironically, I googled "freeloading" and this was the first response:

take advantage of other people's generosity without giving anything in return.

"why pay rent when you can freeload?"

Sharing resources with a partner is not the same as freeloading. It's literally the point of partnership.

Sapindus

The OP has offered to pay half the cost of their joint life in the house, the fact there is no mortgage or rent to pay as part of that is irrelevant, if there was I am sure OP would contribute to that too.  The only "generosity" on his part is by being the boyfriend, which suggests he has an overinflated idea of his own value.  He would lose out if OP left, he should be grateful.

The only argument for OP paying more is if they earn more, so say they earn twice as much as boyfriend they might pay two thirds of the bills.  And then you could argue it's boyfriend who would be freeloading.

Tabieth

prowla said:

Tabieth said:

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. 

They're getting accommodation for free.

Ironically, I googled "freeloading" and this was the first response:

take advantage of other people's generosity without giving anything in return.

"why pay rent when you can freeload?"

The OP has offered to contribute to all bills / costs. The OPs partner wants them to contribute to a non-existent rent / mortgage. If anyone is freeloading here, it ain’t the OP.