Owning house outright before relationship and breakup consequences

Lokolo_2 wrote: »

Hi Socajam, you sound very sensible now and have similar thoughts to me, yes definitely not market rent, that would be taking the Mickey! I guess the most moral thing would be only to charge them half the bills and to protect my investment that way even if it means the partner living rent free, then time would tell if they can be trusted the money they saved could be used for a wedding and maybe they pay for holidays and meals out as a thank you for living rent free!

Nobody has mentioned how the lack of a secure home would make you feel, I can imagine some people would not like that idea and insist on buying into the house? That would leave me with another potential issue!

Any rent to profit from someone you love would be taking the Mickey. You’re wanting to have your cake and it. I don’t think you’ll have to worry about someone wanting to buy into your property for a long time. Your issue at the moment will be forming a meaningful relationship with anyone since you will view everyone as a potential gold digger and will seek to profit from them if you can.

Socajam wrote: »

Come back to me in a few years when someone who you love put you through hell and back
If you want to see the devil in the person you love, just wait until the relationship goes south.
I know what I went through and as I said there is no way in hell am I prepared to give someone 50% of my hard earned property.
When you had to live on one meal a day, interest at 15%, bare cupboards not even a bag of sugar and some teabags to make tea.
The banks charging you for going overdrawn, but you had no choice, walking down the street talking to yourself as if you are mad because you cannot see any end in sight. This all took place 1989 -1990, those terrible interest rate days.
So yes, I would tell anyone, secure what you have because life is a real ***** when the love turns sour.

You still seem to be missing the point entirely. Not once have I said anything about the equity in the property or having to give it away or share it with a partner. I’m talking purely about the utility bills. There is no mortgage so just council tax and utilities. Why would either you or the OP charge a partner more than 50% of the council tax or utilities to live in your mortgage free property?

unholyangel wrote: »

OP the point I've made repeatedly on here is that if you're ever in that situation (of having a partner move into a home you solely own), get a document drawn up stating what the agreement is between you.

Paying rent to someone that has a mortgage does not automatically give you a beneficial interest (else practically every tenant in a BTL property would be gaining an interest) and only taking half the bills (or less) doesn't prevent them from making such a claim.

But having it in writing that they are not gaining an interest in the property, makes it very difficult for them to later claim otherwise.

The OP doesn't have a mortgage. (S)he does want to charge a future partner more than 50% of the bills though. Comparing lodgers and tenants to a live in partner contributing towards a mortgage is comparing apples with oranges.

Lokolo_2 wrote: »

I understand what you are saying, but isn't it a tad unfair for someone to live rent free and then potentially walk off with a nice pot of savings at my expense? I can see it is a good idea if the relationship works then that money could be used for a wedding or something both would benefit from. I am not talking about market rate of course but something negotiable between the two. Maybe this is a bad idea though, I am definitely open to more views about this! Possibly putting it into a joint account instead?

A lot of your debate is down to morals. Some people believe a partner should be paying rent, some won't. Both opinions are as valid as the other. I'm on the side of he shouldn't be paying rent. If you want rent money get a lodger. He won't be a lodger, he won't have any rights what so ever and you'd expect him to pay more into the household than you do, which seems unfair. However as I said it's up for debate.

As much as you want to protect your future this hypothetical partner will want to protect theirs as well and having a pot of money will make things a lot easier should you just kick them out one day. Personally in their shoes I wouldn't be moving in with such suggestions, I'd rather pay rent elsewhere but others might feel differently.

Legally speaking you're on sticky ground accepting rent in this situation. Paying money into a joint account is still paying rent, just via a more sneaky method so you can try and avoid any beneficial interest. Posters will also come along and suggest getting an agreement drawn up. While this might help should the situation arise it's not legally binding and can easily be ignored by a judge. As I said above they aren't a tenant, no such legal agreement exists.

If you want to be 100% confident then don't accept the money, other than for bills.

unholyangel wrote: »

Also, tenants & live in partner comparing apples and oranges...that may be the case morally, but its certainly not the case legally.

:huh:

Legally speaking a tenant is nothing like a live in partner in any way, shape of form.