Am I paying too much to live at my partners house?

My partner pays me a nominal rent (less than he was paying for a HMO room) it is more than half the utilities but he uses much more than I do and I don't expect him to pay for any repairs/replacement of white goods etc. I'll likely need a new boiler in the nearish future and that will run into thousands that I'll absorb.

How is that the sensible solution? You’ve literally just said it’s ok for her to sponge off him because he earns more! 🤦‍♂️

Plus potentially capital gains when you come to sell, whereas he can utilise the tax free rent a room relief on what you pay him and is exempt from capital gains. You shouldn’t expect to live for free, but you didn’t NEED to move in, you presumably took a joint decision as a couple and so it should be fair to both.

This is the sensible solution, especially if you include a discussion about mortgage contributions and the implications of each option. Ie partial ownership etc.
When my partner moved in he had to sign a waiver for the mortgage company, has he checked that?

Yes you should be paying rent on top of utilities and as you say your financially better off living with him and he is also financially better off sharing is house with you. You both seem to be benefiting from the arrangement so I see no issue here

75% of the bills you mean, like OP is.

Incorrect - your way she is being subsidised by his equity. That’s why it’s should be at the full current market value of the property and interest only because this ignores all the equity he has poured into it. Rent would also include a profit margin for a landlord so incorrect in the opposite direction……
If it’s a four bed house in the south east (assumption based on £800/month utilities - mine is 3 bed and it’s £600 utilities inc council tax) likely he would have had to put a substantial deposit in and/or accrued significant equity.
Sounds like he is being incredibly generous and not really paying attention to what’s going on as it’s what she suggested and a couple of hundred quid a month makes little difference to him and she is being incredibly tight and living rent free in someone else’s place for just a utility bill contribution…….

Not exactly, as the concept of a mortgage is that interest payments are much higher to start with than the equity paid off and that ratio changes as you pay more of it off. It’s not an interest only mortgage after all, so the interest only calc interest always stays high and isn’t accurate; you’d be paying off their mortgage. Rent is a better comparison to use here, it takes out the element where you gain equity.

Presumably the new lodger won't be sharing a room or having sex with him. Or what sort of lodging arrangement did you have in mind?

I'd say exactly the same thing if the genders were reversed or the same genders or whatever. If he wanted help with the mortgage he should have been upfront about it and it would be categorised as rent rather than giving her any right to his house. She wouldn't actually be paying the mortgage she'd be paying him. She thought she was paying half the utilities and it turns out she was paying more than half and he was probably using more of the electricity anyway with his electric car guzzling electricity. She was also paying for her own food. He didn't tell her what was actually going on.

Just thinking this same thing…for the second time tonight.

Go back to your own house, OP. You're allowing this man to live almost free of charge. Whilst sharing a bed with him, too. I bet you do chores as well. & it sounds like you're paying a big whack of the usage cost for his electric car. He's sneaky, and mean. He must be laughing, especially if he's cutting down everything to absolute basic packages. If your own house has more than 2 bedrooms you could simply rent out 1 room and you have the other(s). I mean you don't even have your own room where you are now. Just go home and stop letting a man use you.

I live with my partner in his house. When I moved in he showed me all his bill to utilities etc and we divided it in half. It works out at £390 per month which includes everything including stuff like broadband, council tax, tv licence energy, water etc. So £600 sounds a lot if it’s just the 2 of you. It’s not fair if you are paying more than him so you definitely need a conversion about that.

move out, rent somewhere
your BF can get a lodger at a more commercial rate.

I think your partner has shown a lack of honesty or generosity about this. You pay £600 per month. You pay separately for food as well. You pay more than half the utilities since your share would be £400 pounds or maybe less since you say it's his electric vehicle that is chewing through electricity. In fact, you are now subsidising his mortgage to the tune of £200 a month - on a property you don't own, have no claim on and could be kicked out without notice, not to mention sharing the bedroom. He's now only paying for half the utilities when he was previously responsible for all of them and although there may be a slight rise with another person in the house there's only one lot of heating, lighting and so on. Yes, you own another property which is rented - and you are taking the risks of careless tenants or tenants who fail to pay the rent and have to be winkled out at great expense or some dreadful combination of both so you are saving money but so is he. On the other hand, in your property you had security of tenure and you don't here. I imagine your tenants might have a fixed term lease so it's not as if the place would be available for your immediate use if he did kick you out.

To be honest, I would find financial underhandedness more difficult to deal with than sexual infidelity. I think it's because financial underhandedness requires planning as well as stealth rather than being random lust. I just can't imagine my husband, and we had separate finances for many years, taking advantage like this. This would be a massive red flag for me. This is how he is acting in what I assume are the early stages of your relationship. Just imagine how he might be acting 10 years in.

The correct way of doing this is to work out what the house would cost to buy currently with NO DEPOSIT on an INTEREST ONLY mortgage, then pay half of this and half of the bills. That way no one is subsidising anyone.
Everyone ignores the equity in the property - this is removed by finding out the full current market value of the property.
Using the figure for an interest only mortgage is the figure that a bank would charge for borrowing the full market value of the property.
This is not subsidising his mortgage - this is paying half of the irretrievable cost each month of the property. Like paying rent - as he does.
He is still left paying the principal (assuming he is on a repayment mortgage) and she should have no rights to the equity in the future.
This is the ONLY fair way to do things as no one subsidises anyone - no emotions just pure logic.

I think that’s fine £600 all in plus food? No utility bills, council tax, house insurance, garden waste collection, window cleaners, wi-fi?
What about wear and tear and what happens in white goods need replacing?
I think you’re just about right with £600.

This thread is super frustrating to read!

What isn’t mentioned in the first post (but clarified later) is that OP has her own property and mortgage which she rents out and makes a small profit (rent covers the mortgage). Moving in with her partner has enabled her to do this.

If the roles were reversed and her partner rented his house out and moved in with her, would it be fair for him to only pay for half of bills/utilities but allow OP to pay for the full mortgage with no assistance (even though his mortgage is being covered by rent)? I highly doubt it! Double standards on most of the advice in this post.

He’s not “profiting” from her or being a CF - they are both benefitting from the arrangement!

The way I read it the £800 figure for bills included the mortgage?

If the £800 includes mortgage then it's unfair.

If £800 is only utilities and he pays the mortgage separately then yes I can see how it's fair she pays more % of bills as her contribution

but she benefits from her rise in equity from the place she rents out.

paying 75% of the fixed bills but no rent contribution - ie living rent free - sounds a fair deal to me. it avoids her paying towards his mortgage and equity issues if they split. and you'd look to change it down the line when things more serious, you choose to buy together etc.
Though if i am paying 75% of the bills, i don't want some removed - I WANT MY SKY!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If it is fair for OP to pay nothing towards the mortgage OP will be fine if her partner suggests it is now his turn to rent his property out covering his mortgage "making little profit" and they can both take a turn to live in OP's property with him paying 50% of the bills and none of the mortgage. Depending on the size of his mortgage he could be a grand a month better off.

She didn't say she was against paying rent, but paying 75% of the bills while he benefits from the equity in unfair

I think £600 sounds fine. My then boyfriend (now DH) paid me £500 per month when he moved in with me nearly 30 years ago, we were both better off from the arrangement.

Ah yes i misread it. Where she said it's rented she must mean her own place that she rented out.
Been a long day

No, she said he said he didn't need any help with his mortgage.