To not want to be DP’s tenant?

But this isn't what is happening.
He is wanting to buy a better, bigger more expensive house, but he can't really afford it, so he wants OP to subsidise his ability to buy it, without giving her any stake or security in the property. This is massively taking the piss.
If can't really afford it, he can't really afford it. He shouldn't be using OP to be able to afford it without giving her any rights to the property.

But this isn't what is happening.

He is wanting to buy a better, bigger more expensive house, but he can't really afford it, so he wants OP to subsidise his ability to buy it, without giving her any stake or security in the property. This is massively taking the piss.

If can't really afford it, he can't really afford it. He shouldn't be using OP to be able to afford it without giving her any rights to the property.

No he was looking after himself, now he is looking to increase his wealth at the expense of his dp of four years.

the only rent that’s fair in this situation is 50% of the interest portion of the new mortgage- since he keeps the equity part you shouldn’t have to contribute to that. That should be low enough for you to build up your own equity be it savings or a BTL

He's taking the piss really
Or looking after himself.
After all ,a woman in the same situation as the boyfriend asking for advice on mn would more than likely to be advised to do what he is doing especially with someone who is not in a good financial position.

Me and my partner were exactly the same- he lived in my flat and I made damn sure he paid £0 towards mortgage or any of the work I had done.

After a couple of years once we were sure it was a good fit, I sold the flat and we bought a much bigger house together. We bought as tenants in common and my larger deposit is protected should we split.

Could you suggest this “deal” to him? You go to a solicitor and make a contract basically that splits the equity on sale so everything is “fair”.

I don’t think that you should be paying substantial rent tbh- you’ll be paying off his mortgage without the opportunity to save for your own future.

You could pay a token rent whilst purchasing your own investment property in a cheaper area? Or have other investments such as stocks and shares.

You're absolutely right that you should have a share of the investment. He's being very unfair.

Tenants in Common in the percentages that you contribute with ring fenced deposits.

I think you need to have a long talk with him.
I totally understand his point of view (as someone who also lost everything). But you are also in a very vulnerable position. You need to be proactive in securing your future.
In your position I would say that, in light of his position regarding the house and any future house purchase, you want to recalculate finances. I would then work out exactly 50% of utilities and food costs and 25% of council tax. That would be how much I would be willing to contribute to joint expenses.
The rest of my income I would be saving towards a deposit and personal expenses. When you have enough you can buy a small buy to let. Not with the idea of making a huge profit just so you have some security. Yes, you may be worse off some months but you are building security and a future for yourself.
You would probably be happier in your relationship knowing that you are not trapped.

The long and short of all this is whether or not it will cost you more to live with him or live elsewhere?

If it's cheaper live with him and you still want to, then ask for a tenancy agreement so he can't just make you homeless at any stage?

If it's cheaper live independently, leave him and rent with the benefit of having tenant protection.

Your suggestion of ring fencing his deposit and then splitting equity isn't a fair or viable option for him or anyone in his position? He doesn't see this as a life long commitment and has been very clear about that. It's your move next- he has been very clear.

For the new house, get his contribution protected and then share equity on the rest. My daughter did this.

No, I wouldn’t be happy with that after that long. It’s fine to pay “rent” and not get any share of the house in a new relationship, but I agree that the power dynamics and risks would seem off to me as well. I’d say you’re happy to continue as you are (and save hard to hopefully buy a small place yourself), or

otherwise go in as tenants in common.

It's great that you've managed to get out of debt and on to an even keel, OP. Now you need to think about your future financial security. Whatever you do, don't become your DP's lodger, that would be a terrible mistake. All you would be doing is increasing his security while having none of your own. Stop being so understanding about him using you in this way! If buying a place with him as tenants in common isn't a goer, put as much money as you can into an ISA (which can be used for your own home later, regardless of whether you think now you won't be able to afford it) and also pay into a pension. You are coasting towards being in a really bad place when you're older if you don't take advantage of your affordable living situation now.

This. ^ I bet if the OP was a man, and he was moaning that his girlfriend of just 4 years (who he lives with in the house SHE owns) won't let him on the mortgage, so he co-owns the house, the responses would be 'why do you think this woman owes you half her property?! Good for her for not giving in, and safeguarding herself and HER house.'

As people have said @barhumbug it looks like you can't afford to be co-owner anyway. OR to get him sell his house and buy a house with you.

I agree with other posters that he doesn't sound very committed though, and you need to find somewhere else to rent. And also, no, you are not a tenant. Tenants have certain rights. You have none. You are just a lodger. (Sorry, that sounds so rude and dismissive, but it's true.)

Relatively recently before your relationship with him, you were homeless and sofa surfing. You don’t earn enough to buy a property.

I’m sorry, but you’re too big a financial risk to go fully into something with. Especially when the other party is the opposite and has got themselves into a good financial situation (even though some was luck and inheritance).

You need to accept being a lodger essentially, or look for a relationship with someone who wants to partner with you for life. I don’t think he sees you that way currently.

No way. You won’t even have tenants rights. You can be thrown out on a whim.

Why do you have to live with him? It’s a very precarious option. I would buy my own home on shared ownership as you described, and carry on the relationship. If he declines, that tells you everything you need to know surely?

He isn’t being fair, you would be mad to do this. Even if you bought for example a fifth of the new house it would give you the chance to build equity.

I’ve heard of so many women that have done this and ended up in their 50’s and 60’s with no assets and their P or ex P has masses of equity and often a large pension as well.

I would not like this either.

I knew someone in this situation, and in her late 40s and terminally ill, she ended up homeless after finding her partner had been long term cheating on her.

I can see his point of view too, but essentially he is asking you to not only remain housing insecure but also to subsidise his ability to buy a nicer house, without you having claim to the house. He's taking the piss really.

Not true. The OP is almost always exhorted to be financially prudent—most OP are female but if the OP is judged to be improvident then posters routinely take the side of the party with assets to be hoarded. Thats the throughline here in discussions of parental wealth and wealth inequity within a couple. Absent children women are routinely chastised for failing to earn enough money for full financial independence.

It's not going to happen. You are unfortunately, with your debt history, basically a bigger financial risk overall and he's not wanting to be saddled with that (if it happens again) or dragged down by it. He's protecting his financial interests.

Why not save your money in a high interest acct and when you have enough, use as a deposit on a small place you can rent out - so you've invested and also got a separate stream of income?

It gives you financial security - which you want too- (this this thread).

It's two important things for you though? Could you really compromise on that?

I think you need to explain to him what you have said about understanding why he would want to protect his house up until now, but that if he doesn’t want to get married you need to think about what happens if you split up or if he dies and you are not named on the mortgage and become homeless.

the two options are that he either splits the mortgage as described by pps so that you have a small share that is fair for both of you, or you continue contributing the same amount financially as you have been up until now so you can continue to save and potential buy somewhere to rent out in the future or invest somehow. If he doesn’t want to look out for your future security in any way then I don’t think he really loves you. If you start paying more now then he is the only person to gain and you lose out - this isn’t fair after 4 years together.

I haven’t been living ‘rent free’ the past 4yrs, I have been paying a contribution to the bills/running costs/paying for food etc which is roughly equivalent to a cheap rental price for the area

But you'd have had all those costs even if you were living elsewhere, @barhumbug, plus rent on top, so the PP wasn't wrong in saying that the savings you've built up have been facilitated by paying no actual rent

You've been very wise to clear all your debts rather than spend the money elsewhere, but the reality is that you're simply not in a financial position to be "equal partners" - at least not without marriage, and you've not mentioned that he wants that?

At least you know where you stand with this man (who, incidentally, is only doing what women in a similar position are advised to) and if this more expensive purchase is a longer term plan I'd personally spend the time saving even harder so you have the means to get out if it all falls apart

Edited to add sorry - I see you said he's adamant about not wanting marriage, in which case your situation's even clearer ... only for pity's sake don't get pregnant

Like you I wouldn't have a problem with DP wanting to continue owning the property he had before you met, but I would have a problem with moving into a new one with him and not co-buying it with him. Puts you at a big disadvantage.

If the relationship and your financial wellbeing matter to him, he should be open to the suggestion that you buy a place that you can afford half of - why not suggest it and see what he says?

What rent do you pay? Is it what a lodger pays? Or for a room in a shared house for example? If so then that should be a very small amount and you should be able to build up a substantial savings pot of your own.

If he stretches himself will this have an impact on your shared lifestyle eg can you both go out / go on holidays as much as before? As I wouldn't want to have to rein things in because my partner had bitten off more than he could chew rather than accept my help

Would you have any say where the house was / how to decorate / what sofa to buy etc (in the same way you would have if it was genuinely thought of as your home?)

If he genuinely is happy making joint decisions (eg location, furniture etc other than financial) I think I could live with this, other than if I was ever planning on having children. You can't have children with someone who won't share finances at all (eg what would happen if they were disabled and one of you had to give up work). And you can't have children with someone if you're effectively their lodger as they could kick you out at any point and then you'd be stuck as you'd be homeless so they would get custody.

There is protecting yourself but by not letting you even have a small share of any future property he seems to be doing so on the assumption that you'll split rather than the possibility.