AIBU - house purchase with partner

Still not really fair imo. The need for a bigger house is because of her previous children.

Ring fence your deposit so that's safe. If partner earns 3 X more than you he pay 70 percent of SDLT, mortgage, and the fees for coming out of mortgage early and selling fees. You pay 30 percent of it all. Then he owns 70 percent of house value minus deposit and you own 30 percent plus deposit. I think that's fair. Buy tenants in common if not getting married and pooling income. Also split other household bills 70/30 too.

So rent forever? Be a lodger in their house?

can you not budget 600k

you put in 300k (if i have read that right of what you have!)

then the rest of the 300k is split 50/50. If you split up then its quite simple. You have children from another relationship and id imagine if you did not have these living with you, youwould not need a bigger house? Therefore to make it fair IMO it should be 50/50

and for gods sake ringfence that 300k!!!!

You are not doing anything wrong. Just asking all the right questions.

Years of debt accumulated over 17 years?
Massive red flag.
Why would you get involved with someone with that history of behaviour.

You will be 100% putting your children at risk.

@Whatshouldidoinlife when you say bills were split 50/50 was that just food/utilities or any element of housing cost?

His previous big debts would be a red flag for me.

This is the best way, in my opinion.

Yes, he'll have more disposable income than you, but as you are not married, this seems fairest. If you both agree to him to paying a bigger percentage, then you need to agree that he will have a bigger percentage of the equity if you split.

You could "live together apart", I hear a lot of people are trying it and liking (with or without kids), then he can buy/rent his own place, and you keep yours. The kids have two homes with parents still in a loving relationship. It'll save a packet on buying costs, and lets be honest (she says climbing into the trench and awaiting male fire) women who cohabit with men take on most of the emotional and domestic labour in the home, whilst still holding down jobs (that is statistically backed, not just me having a whinge) – what is in it for you to run a big home with a man in it? The argument that it's better for the kids, falls so short when they get to watch you arguing over his nose hair in the sink 24/7.

Moving him into your home will get complicated, that's "beneficial rights" territory, which is really muddy.

Yes but it sounds like he WANTS to be in the larger house with her and the three kids, and that is what the thread is about.

I don't think you sound grabby. You have everything to lose here, and whilst he is putting in more financially each month - you are putting in more and accepting all of the risk. There is no risk to him.

In 15 months, surely if he can pay that much of a mortgage of that size he has a chunk of savings now, or is that what he is putting down as stamp duty? In which case he came to the relationship as an adult man without a bean?

If I were you, I would get your finances in order for you current house, move him in with you to see how it goes. Get him to pay bills and a nominal rent. You should both be better off. He puts the money he saves into a house fund and you do the same on the "rent" portion of what he pays you.

Reassess in a year and he should have more money to put down. If he doesn't I'd be questioning where its going.

Do you earn less because you took time off to have his child and/or work part time for childcare purposes?

If you haven’t lived together already there’s no way buying a house together is the right option especially having two unrelated children in the mix.

Yes, just have him live with you as a lodger until your early repayment period finishes. If you are still getting on well living under one roof and want extra space, then consider a move then.

OP this patently isn't in your best interests at all.

Why not try a full lodger agreement on a rolling 30 day contract and see how it goes.

Drawn up by a solicitor.
Protect your childrens home.

When we moved in my DP had a lot more deposit and earned 2/3x as much as me. We ringfenced his deposit (with agreement that he would get that back if we split and sold the house - can't quite remember the deal if it sold for less) and shared the stamp duty and purchase costs. We then owned 50/50 and the mortgage payment came out of a joint account that we have contributed to differently as situation has changed (firstly proportional to salary which initially meant he paid more but then I did when he retrained and over the past couple of years equally which firstly left him with more disposable income than me and more recently I have more). Repairs and renovations we have always shared equally. I don't think I would have been happy to share his sale costs if he'd had them. I think you should share the stamp duty and enable him to put in some deposit and then discuss the mortgage payments and if they come from a joint account and how that is paid into which I think it is fair if it is proportional to salary or if not then maybe get a cheaper house?

Yes but he doesn't need a deposit for a family home. He has only a need to house himself and his daughter. The fact that, as you point out, he couldn't afford the large house alone is irrelevant. He has no need for a large family home. Only the OP does (and even then, it's a want not need).

The numbers are the facts in this thread: he does not have the deposit for a "family home", which for OP is a £700,000 house. OP is not buying a 2 bed flat so that example is irrelevant.