Sharing household bills with new partner

ButterCheese

itsthelittlethings said:

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

Not in my experience. I paid half of everything including the mortgage to my ex. It wasn't until we got married and I was added to the mortgage that I started to have a stake. According to her solicitor anyway, which I agreed with

Exodi

ButterCheese said:
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 irony of saying this when your reply before this was to consider making profit by charging rent on her mortgage free house...

ButterCheese said:
The fact that he stands to get back nothing if she sells the house is irrelevant.  

That's nice of you to decide.

ButterCheese said:

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.

So I think we can agree 'rent' is a red herring here, and we're in agreement that he should possibly pay more in reflection of the increased costs to her for him living there... except he already does!!! I don't know why you've been hellbent on implying he's getting a free ride, he already pays 70% of the bills!

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

As he pays 20% more than an equal split, are the household bills £2000 or less (I'd imagine so as there is no mortgage)? If so, then his increased contribution covers the amount she is short from benefit reductions. I suspect this is the very reason they agreed that split to begin with.

LolaPup25 said:

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.

I didn't understand this part - she would still own most of the house? If (for example) you owned as Tenants in Common you could create a Deed of Trust that stipulates that he pays her an extra £250 (for example) a month, for £250 in equity, or 0.1% of the house, up to 50% or whatever they decide. I don't understand how an agreement that says "You own this part, except if I need it" would work (I suspect it doesn't, hence his lack of interest)

Unfortunately, except for ButterCheese, you can see that most people think he is being quite reasonable, and he quite rightly doesn't think it's fair to be used as a cash machine.

Unfortunately I agree with @Emmia "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. "

It sounds like the only reason repairs were afforded in the past was because OP paid for them, which they were happy to do without reservation as her parent. Her financial setup doesn't work if she is always dependent on someone else paying for repairs. It sounds like with him paying 70% of the bills, she is in the same financial position as if she were alone without the benefit reduction, but despite this it is being unfairly used as an excuse to convince him into paying for repairs. I'm sure if shoe was on the other foot and OP's daughter moved into someones mortgage free house and they suggested she started paying for rent and repairs with no equity, OP would quite rightly be outraged.

ButterCheese said:

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.

And I moved my partner into my mortgaged house and didn't charge her rent as that what I felt was fair.

This means we might both believe each other are generous.

Similar vapid emotional arguments - 'because we were a team', 'I thought it was the right thing to do', etc. Because of that she was a able to save money and we were able to have her buy into the house (and now we're married with kids so it's all history).

Nonetheless, our situations are somewhat different from the OP's - as no mortgage exists here. I wonder if you would have been quite so generous to your ex with that little detail included.

Of course her benefits have reduced and her bills might have increased, which is why he pays more towards bills.

Emmia

If the boyfriend didn't live with her, could she have a lodger? That would give her access to more money and might provide a basis for charging him. 

Lodgers don't live for free even if the householder is mortgage free.

ButterCheese

Exodi said:

ButterCheese said:
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 irony of saying this when your reply before this was to consider making profit by charging rent on her mortgage free house...

The OP asked for opinions, I've just given mine.  

itsthelittlethings

Exodi said:

ButterCheese said:
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 irony of saying this when your reply before this was to consider making profit by charging rent on her mortgage free house...

ButterCheese said:
The fact that he stands to get back nothing if she sells the house is irrelevant.  

That's nice of you to decide.

ButterCheese said:

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.

So I think we can agree 'rent' is a red herring here, and we're in agreement that he should possibly pay more in reflection of the increased costs to her for him living there... except he already does!!! I don't know why you've been hellbent on implying he's getting a free ride, he already pays 70% of the bills!

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

As he pays 20% more than an equal split, are the household bills £2000 or less (I'd imagine so as there is no mortgage)? If so, then his increased contribution covers the amount she is short from benefit reductions. I suspect this is the very reason they agreed that split to begin with.

LolaPup25 said:

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.

I didn't understand this part - she would still own most of the house? If (for example) you owned as Tenants in Common you could create a Deed of Trust that stipulates that he pays her an extra £250 (for example) a month, for £250 in equity, or 0.1% of the house, up to 50% or whatever they decide. I don't understand how an agreement that says "You own this part, except if I need it" would work (I suspect it doesn't, hence his lack of interest)

Unfortunately, except for ButterCheese, you can see that most people think he is being quite reasonable, and he quite rightly doesn't think it's fair to be used as a cash machine.

Unfortunately I agree with @Emmia "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. "

It sounds like the only reason repairs were afforded in the past was because OP paid for them, which they were happy to do without reservation as her parent. Her financial setup doesn't work if she is always dependent on someone else paying for repairs. It sounds like with him paying 70% of the bills, she is in the same financial position as if she were alone without the benefit reduction, but despite this it is being unfairly used as an excuse to convince him into paying for repairs. I'm sure if shoe was on the other foot and OP's daughter moved into someones mortgage free house and they suggested she started paying for rent and repairs with no equity, OP would quite rightly be outraged.

ButterCheese said:

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.

And I moved my partner into my mortgaged house and didn't charge her rent as that what I felt was fair.

This means we might both believe each other are generous.

Similar vapid emotional arguments - 'because we were a team', 'I thought it was the right thing to do', etc. Because of that she was a able to save money and we were able to have her buy into the house (and now we're married with kids so it's all history).

Nonetheless, our situations are somewhat different from the OP's - as no mortgage exists here. I wonder if you would have been quite so generous to your ex with that little detail included.

Of course her benefits have reduced and her bills might have increased, which is why he pays more towards bills.

It may be a mortgage free house but it’s not a cost free house, as the roof maintenance is showing. Perhaps enough rent so that she is not making a profit out of him? You’d be surprised by how much that is. And if he’s just with her for a free house, she’d be better off without him.

LolaPup25

Thank you to everyone who has taken the time to comment, I have certainly got loads of information from this thread, some of which has been very useful.  The only thing I took offense to was the assumption that my daughter was out to make a profit by charging her partner rent.   Obviously there is a lot more to her story than financial which I didn't feel was necessary or essential to put on here.