Sharing household bills with new partner

Exodi

ButterCheese said:

LolaPup25 said:

we moved out so her partner could move in........   she lost her universal credits............ He doesn't pay any rent ......... He is not happy to pay for this roof as he feels it will be dead money  

He's taking advantage IMO.  Fair would be: he pays rent, backdated to when he moved in, and pays rent going forward.  This would enable your daughter to pay to fix the roof, even if it means getting a loan and paying back monthly; his 600-800/month rent (whatever the going rate is) would clear that in a year.

Why does he think he shouldn't have to pay rent?  Where else could he live where that happens?

I'm really interested in how you've arrived at that conclusion, I couldn't disagree more strongly, this concept comes up a lot.

Firstly and probably of most significance is the inescapable reality that charging someone rent when you don't have a mortgage is profiteering off your partner (not customer). If you're going to counter this by suggesting "it's not profiteering because it would go towards repairs" are you suggesting that rebates should then be due if there are no repairs in any given year, or that he should be charged more "rent" if the repair costs are higher in a certain year? You suggest charging the market rate, which includes a profit element (and has usually built in a management fee, cost of compliance to rental legislation, etc) means you will be profiteering off your partner (at margins a commercial landlord might envy). Some may rub their hands with glee at the prospect, I frankly find even the thought alien in the context of a relationship. 

Let's also not forget that if she decided to charge him rent, he would have the rights of being a tenant/lodger - such as his own room and space for one.

The other problem, which others have hinted on, is the risk of propriety estoppel when charging for housing related costs. It's one of the reasons people typically have their partners pay half the non-housing related bills to mitigate this.

To be honest, many don't even charge their partner council tax - the logic being that they were perfectly happy paying the mortgage (appreciate there is no mortgage in this scenario) and council tax beforehand. Though oftentimes, if the person loses SPD, they'd might request the difference.

This situation is only nuanced because the OP's benefits have reduced because he has moved in, but this is a totally separate issue and I feel we are conflating the two. Her benefits being reduces are not her 'fault', but likewise it's not his.

I agree with all the others (except you) that he is being reasonable and the OPs daughter may be wanting to have her cake and eat it. The only caveat is I'm not sure if the split is 70:30 her or him - if he's paying more, good for him, if he's paying less, than that's not fair. Should he be expected to subsidise her income because of the benefit system being based on household circumstances? I don't know the answer, I guess it comes up a lot. I think trying to achieve this under the guise of rent is disingenuous.

In my opinion, if she wants him to pay for repairs to her house - he needs to be given equity, otherwise I can't help but to agree with his position - "it will be dead money for him as he doesn't own the house and will not get that money back".

Usually what gets recommended is the money saved by him on rent should be saved and then eventually used to buy into the property (or upgrade).

Separately from any legal/moral/etc considerations, just speaking as normal person here, you're not seriously suggesting she unilaterally announces she's going to be charging him market rate rent and backdating it to when he moved in? I presume it's said for dramatic effect and not a serious suggestion? I know we can get carried away in principle and stuff on this forum and often lose sight of the fact these are real life scenarios.

EDIT:

MyRealNameToo said:

Keep_pedalling said:

I also think he should be paying 50% of the household expense not 30%. For her sake he should not be paying for any major work on the house. 

Are you sure he isnt the one paying 70% because he's the higher earner?

FrugaiMacDugal said:

LolaPup25 said:.  

They split the household bills 70/30. 

It may be that he pays the 70%, the OP might come back and clarify that.

This was my initial thought too but I saw others assumed the opposite.

I guess this detail needs clarifying, though unfortunately I don't think the OP will be back (or perhaps only to agree with ButterCheese's comment as I suspect it aligns with theirs).

ButterCheese

Exodi said:

I'm really interested in how you've arrived at that conclusion, I couldn't disagree more strongly, this concept comes up a lot.

I arrived at that conclusion because:

Not his fault that she loses UC, but it's a fact that they must have known and agreed to.  So he's moving in and costing the household money.  But he is not paying any rent to make up for this.

The daughter is mortgage free because she suffered a life changing injury and went through (and continues to go through) the hardships that brings.  He does not.  So, why should he expect to live there rent free?  Apart from the (maybe 30%, maybe 70%) of the bills, he's benefitting by paying all his extra income into a savings account, whilst letting her struggle to literally keep a roof over their heads.

It's up to her whether she wants to profit from charging him rent, but the rent should at least be a reasonable sum.  He should have no problem paying his way if he values the relationship and values his partner, expecially knowing that life is probably harder for her than it is for him.

I'm not saying your wrong witht the rights and legalities, but when it's a partner (and not a random lodger) there are other elements that contribute to reasonable or unreasonable behaviour.

In summary - if he paid his way via rent, she might have the money or credit to pay for the roof. 

Exodi

You seem very one-sided on this?

ButterCheese said:
Not his fault that she loses UC, but it's a fact that they must have known and agreed to.

Yes they both should have known in advance and potentially agreed a plan. For all we know, this could be the very reason he (may) pay 70% of the bills.

ButterCheese said:
So he's moving in and costing the household money.

Except he's not, because he brings his own income to the household? I'd be surprised if their combined income is less than her sole income before he moved in?

ButterCheese said:
But he is not paying any rent to make up for this.

You seem to be totally fixated on 'rent' as the tool to fix any potential income disparity between them. As I said earlier, you are conflating two entirely separate issues. If they feel she is left with much less than him every month, they might intend to renegotiate how the split the bills. Whereas charging rent is awkward, carries the risk of propriety estoppel and the optics are absolutely awful.

ButterCheese said:
The daughter is mortgage free because she suffered a life changing injury and went through (and continues to go through) the hardships that brings.  He does not.  So, why should he expect to live there rent free?

For all the reasons listed above though I appreciate this is obviously a particularly emotive example in this scenario. She benefits by owning a house and living there with no mortgage - him living there does not change that, and if he moved out, she would still own a house with no mortgage. I agree that any costs that she has incurred as a consequence of him moving in are on the table (e.g. loss of benefits, potential loss of SPD, increase in utility/groceries/etc) but not just charging him money almost out of spite. I wonder if you'd feel as strongly if the house was inherited instead (rhetorical question).

ButterCheese said:
It's up to her whether she wants to profit from charging him rent, but the rent should at least be a reasonable sum.

It's not 'up to her' whether she wants to profit from her partner (what am I reading?) - I suspect this is only theoretical because I suspect even the mere suggestion of charging market rent on a mortgage free house might end the relationship or at least would cause him to move out to a house where he might enjoy his own room and other rights and privileges.

ButterCheese said:
He should have no problem paying his way if he values the relationship and values his partner

You make it sound like he makes no contribution to the household? He (potentially) pays 70% of the bills.

ButterCheese said:

In summary - if he paid his way via rent, she might have the money or credit to pay for the roof. 

I loath the loaded language throughout this entire post - he does 'pay his way' but nonetheless, if she feels the split should be higher it doesn't have to be via rent. If they split the bills in such a way that they had similar amounts of discretionary income, she could save for repairs, I agree with that. Or if she wants him to pay for repairs, give him equity in the property.

I am curious as to the prior arrangement with the OP. They mention "Up til 4 years ago we lived with her but then we moved out so her partner could move in.  Due to this she lost her universal credits due to her partners wage and savings." If the OP's parents weren't paying market rate rent, perhaps you might suggest she should issue a backdated rental invoice to her parents for the period they lived with her also? That should cover the roof.

In summary: I believe there should be no expectation for him to pay for repairs because he is not an owner, and there should be no expectation for him to pay for rent because is not a tenant.

ButterCheese

Exodi said:

there should be no expectation for him to pay for rent because is not a tenant.

That's just wording, which I'm not disagreeing with from a legal standpoint.  But IMO a relationship is more than a business agreement.  The fact that he stands to get back nothing if she sells the house is irrelevant.  They both want to enjoy a working roof over their heads for the time being.  

The statement "She would have to pay for the roof anyway if he didn't live there" works both ways.  You could also say "if he lived elsewhere, he'd have to pay full rent and bills anyway".

I moved in with my ex and paid half the mortgage, half the bills.  That was what I felt was fair.  This left me with probably £500/month extra, which I saved.  Any big items that needed doing (new washing machine for example), I'd pay half for.  Because I used them.  And because we were a team.   When she then said she's struggling for money, I paid her more, because I could see her expenses and income and it was clear I had a lot more disposable income than she did.  Legally i didn't have to, but morally I thought it was the right thing to do.

This is an opinion, not a statement of fact based on UK law, which I don't know about anyway. 

itsthelittlethings

If he pays rent won’t he gain an interest in the property?

LolaPup25

He does pay the 70%, but since he moved in and her UC stopped she is £400 short a month, due to his earnings and savings

LolaPup25

Yes in hindsight this should have been discussed when he moved in.  My daughter has offered to have an agreement written up and also happy to have him added onto the deeds with a statement that a percentage of the home value will remain hers as this is her back for future care if needed.  He has declined to do this.

Emmia

LolaPup25 said:

He does pay the 70%, but since he moved in and her UC stopped she is £400 short a month, due to his earnings and savings

I do wonder if the current property with the costs involved is financially sustainable for your daughter if she doesn't earn enough/have enough in the bank to cover any essential repairs that may be needed. 

The £8k for the roof might be excessive, but could she afford to replace the boiler if it failed, windows etc.

If she can't afford basic maintenance on her current income perhaps she needs to look at moving somewhere more affordable, although I appreciate that is easier said than done, especially if the property has been adapted.

LolaPup25

elsien said:

if he is paying for things like roof repairs, then that could potentially give him a beneficial interest in the property if they split up. 

What would she have done to pay for the repairs if her partner hadn’t moved in - would  you have paid for them because you were living there?

Her accident was when she was 10, so yes we maintained the property until we moved out when she was 25 and her partner moved in

LolaPup25

itsthelittlethings said:

Sorry - he is actually being very kind. You should ensure he is putting money away so if the relationship ends he will have something for himself. If he is contributing to the property above and beyond bills (in my understanding) he begins to own a stake gradually in the proprr.

If I were her I would also think twice before getting married.

He pays 70% of the essential household bills.  She pays 30% and for everything else extra and other maintenance and non essential household purchases.