To not want to be DP’s tenant?

Aw the poor menz on this thread. 😁

He would continue to benefit from the current arrangement. He's no more a 'bank' to the OP than she is to him.

Wouldn’t you be more concerned that your dc make relationships based on love rather than someone of equal finances? Obviously no one wants their dc to be taken advantage of, but every poster has suggested that the op should get only a proportion of the new property not a 50:50 split.

So a man is a bank?

Same, and if a woman owned a whole house on her own on here she would be told to keep it that way

Yep. Save like crazy to build up a huge deposit, then bin him off when the time comes.

Winning comment! 😂

This. 100%. It's a hill I would die on; paying him rent just further feathers his nest, whilst you get nothing in return.

I know two men who did this in their fifties. Much younger women who they married and had children with. George Clooney style.

I’d be tempted to go along with the move, agree to paying a chunky amount of ‘rent’ and then not move in with him.

I think you say I don’t want to be your tenant.

you can buy somewhere together and be tenants in common where your percentage interest in the property is recorded so he will be protected

otherwise you are never getting to invest

be someone’s else’s tenant but not his

I don't know if you can say 50 percent of the profit for 5 percent of the investment is completely fair.

Percentage split of the equity based on contribution to the equity

No marriage. No kids. No shared finances. No shared home. No partnership. No we/us together, just you/him jostling for position separately.
OP, he’s your boyfriend and he’s making sure the exit door is clear should he wish to use it. Boyfriend’s can be fun, but they come and go. You need to build yourself a stable foundation because if this goes on and the relationship break down or he dies, you’re screwed.

You mean me, I think. I had already advised her to plan for her own financial security. You commented on a second post I made.

I don't think you can have a tenancy agreement if you are sharing the house with the owner. You would be a lodger rather than a tenant and would have very few rights.

I love how several people have repeatedly asked what his financial planning is for her security if they break up or he dies and not once asked the OP what’s she’s saving for her own retirement.

FS can we stop treating women like these meek little half people who must shack up with a man with more money for “financial security”. OP’s a grown woman in the 40s, perfectly capable of working with minimal essential bills and should be focused on her own financial security.
No wonder a significant proportion of men refuse marriage, too many women seem to view it as a means to their money!

I would be upfront and say that you won't be paying rent and you're happy to purchase as tenants in common. If he doesn't like that idea and still wants to buy the new house then he'll need to work out how to fund it and you'll need to find some alternative accomodation.

This. I find it very surprising that so many posters insist that compete parity is the only way forward, when I bet most of us earn different amounts to our partners. The the tenants in common arrangement is the solution though.

That's all well and good and lovey and romantic and all. But some of us have been ruined by going all in for love. I will never ever do that again, and I have told my children to be wiser re their finances and not to make the mistakes I did. In that regard, they would be acting as per the OP's OH in this scenario.

That said, perhaps he and OP are just not meant to be - she may be better off exiting, and looking for a man with whom she is on a more equal footing financially, and there's none of this hassle about such things.

He did enable her to pay off her debts though, as she didn't have to pay any rent portion of her living expenses. That's a huge help. Sure, he saved on some bills, but she still came out better off than were it not for him.

Your arrangement up until now was one thing; now you're at a different stage in your relationship and finances, and it's completely appropriate that you can refresh and agree something different for the future. You shouldn't have the recent years hanging over you as PPs are suggesting, as if you owe him something.

You should have the opportunity to build equity and have home ownership, same as he has. I would insist on shared purchase (with ringfencing) and absolutely not pay rent.

Second @AvengersAssembIe comment - what happens if your DP gets hit by a bus? You need to be on the mortgage and deeds for this reason alone. You can't risk being homeless overnight, either because he chooses not to be in a relationship with you anymore, or because he dies.

I can understand that he wants to keep his house in his name, but if you buy a bigger house it should be as tenants in common, and you should then have a proportionate interest.
You are in a very vulnerable position if he dies, you not being married or on the mortgage. His next of kin will inherit and you will be homeless, unless he has a will naming you in it. This would really worry me.

it’s not fair that he should take a risk when you only stand to gain

The both stand to gain - it'll be a financial investment and a larger, presumably nicer place to live. That's why he's keen to do it with the OP subsidising it as a tenant.

I understand he has worked very hard for his home and I wouldn’t want to take any of that away from him.

If that’s true then you need to respect his wishes. I’m in a similar position to him, and if my DP only wanted to be with me because I could be his ticket to getting on the housing ladder, I’d tell him where to go.

The problem with you paying the mortgage on a new home would be that you would have the right to force a sale, so even if he got his money back he’d still lose his home. It’s not his fault that you didn’t have a home before you got together and he did and it’s not fair that he should take a risk when you only stand to gain.

see I looked at this that you have got yourself out of debt because he has not asked for rent all this time - its about time you pay your way.

It never ceases to amaze me how many people here seem to regard romantic relationships as really just a Hobbesian war of all against all.

In a real partnership the kind of profit seeking and fearful accounting has no place. People emphasizing that he “enabled her to pay off her debts” are wrong. His passive support had zero opportunity cost for him as she could be replaced with a rent paying lodger. But that would not have been the gf he was seeking.

Right now his suggestion that he buy a bigger place and she pay rent is straight up exploitation. To the extent it makes fiscal sense for him it undercuts the romantic logic of her decisions.

OP I would suggest you slowly evaluate this relationship and consider moving out. You can date him, if you like, but maintain your own rental elsewhere. This offers you no security long term but neither does this “partner.” You don’t even have the security of a lease!

You are in your forties—better to get out, build equity, and look for a more generous and committed lover than to continue drifting with this one. He has a much shorter time horizon for this relationship than you do or than you have believed him to have. With the suggestion that you convert to renting from him do he can get a better house I really think he has crossed domestic invisible Rubicon. He now regards you as a potential source of income—as though he wants you to “repay” his passive generosity in letting you live with him for four years. How do you find your way into a true, loving, committed relationship from this? I don’t think you can.

Thanks OP. And that would also be a hard NO from me. How could he possibly think that's a fair arrangement? At that point, you should be buying a new place as tenants in common with your ownership share reflecting what you can each afford to invest, or you buy elsewhere (if you can afford to) or rent elsewhere because, at that point, if he's still not prepared to co-own a home with you (even though not 50/50) then he would be proving that he has zero commitment to you and the relationship.
You say that although he hasn't discounted the T-I-C ownership arrangement, he's been "wishy washy" about it. Well, for now, you don't have to press this because it's a few years away (and you're still enjoying the relationship and neither of you ever want children), but every time the subject comes up over the next few years you just need to reiterate "Well, I would only consider upsizing if we bought as T-I-C, even if that means, DP, that you own 90% and I only own 10%." (Or a split like that.)
Incidentally, if you do end up in a long-term partnership, given he won't entertain marriage, it's essential you draw up Wills to protect each other in the event of either of you dying. (Sadly, without the protection of marriage or civil partnership, if your estates are worth more than the current NRB of £325k then the surviving partner won't inherit IHT-free.)