To not want to be DP’s tenant?

Hope you had something drawn up that ringfences the house as yours, because as you’ve married him, it doesn’t matter whose name is on the deeds, in the event of a divorce he’d have a claim on the house.

@barhumbug would you even be allowed to rent out a SO property though?

I own the home me and DH live in. I wouldn't put him on the deeds, even though we've been together 17 years. This is due to being very burnt in a previous divorce. I have no thoughts of leaving him, we are happily married. I thought my first marriage was happy, but my H had a secret life and other women. It makes you very cautious. At the end of the day, I came to the table with a house and he didn't. Same as you. It's not his fault you never got on the property ladder, you can't expect him to put his house on the line, when you could leave at any moment and want to take half his house with you.

Something you've not mentioned, @barhumbug - what are your relative working situations?
I know you said an inheritance helped him to buy, but is he also on a much higher wage than you?

@barhumbug This sounds perfectly fair to me.
If he's not up for this then there's something fundamental that needs addressing.

He has still benefited from OP's contribution towards living costs in that time. It has been mutually beneficial to both OP and her DP.

OP is right to be concerned about long-term financial security though.

While she's in her 40s and not planning on children, she needs to make sure that if anything unanticipated in that department occurs, that she isn't unduely paying the price.

What are the plans on wills and long term investments such as pensions?

My concern with relationships like this is that it's very easy for OP to be fully emotionally committed, invest years of her life into him and supporting his assets then very abruptly find that the relationship ends, her life has to restart yet again, and he carries on. It's not uncommon for men like this to suddenly find a marriage-worthy partner.

If a relationship is genuinely committed with the intention of lasting decades then compromises are made and mutual interests are protected. This one feels like he's enjoying the good times but keeping an eye on the emergency exit.

I understand where he is coming from as nobody wants to have to sell their home if a relationship breaks down. And I'd advise my children this way as well.
But its not comfortable being on the other end of that

I agree completely, @Letstheriveranswer, but OP doesn't have to remain in this relationship with a man who's (perhaps understandably) not showing the commitment she wants

That's her choice to make, and though he's being perfectly open about what he's prepared to offer - basically nothing apart from the chance to live in a nicer house than she could otherwise afford and probably a few treats - presumably she thinks it's worth it

It wouldn't do for me, but each to their own as ever, and at least it can't be said he's future faking since OP knows exactly what the deal is

So you will have spent 9 years with him when he transfers your lodger status to a new address?
Think long and hard about what your long term plan is and keep saving.

You need to ask him to buy with you. He needs to protect the money he puts in. I presume this is possible legally via an agreement you draw up.
If he won't do this then I would look at saving up and buying your own place.

OP, who will he be leaving his assets to when he dies? Has he offered you any safety net in this regard?

If he can afford a new place without your rent then he could afford to increase his mortgage and buy you out if you split up.

The fair thing is that you own in proportion to how much deposit you put in and in the event that you split the house is valued and he buys you out based on that valuation. You get a share of the profit based on what you have contributed. So say the house is £600k and you pay half a £100k mortgage - if the house increases in value to £700k he gets 5/6 of the increase in value + half the remaining increase. What you do if the valuation falls is down to both of you - calculate what you need to pay in the same way, perhaps. You also need an agreement that in the event of his death his estate will pay you something and allow you say 6 months to leave.

It’s been saving him significantly less than it’s been saving the OP though. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

no 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. So essentially anything I’m ‘using’ day to day I pay towards but not the mortgage (at his insistence).

If you’re paying a contribution to food and bills then you’re living rent free. Even with the cheapest rental your running costs would then be more on your own.

Say no to moving. Keep saving until you do have enough for a deposit on something you can fall back on.

Barhumbug are you actually happy to be just his live in girlfriend with no real commitment ever.

Because at this point I’d struggle to say partner it’s girlfriend.

When I bought a house with my partner we arranged it so that it was tenants in common. He owned the amount he paid with the deposit and we split the rest 66/33 on the mortgage. We have since got married but have kept that arrangement as it is in proportion to our income. If anything does happen further down the line, he can buy you out and you will get back what you contributed.

I’m not sure why you’d expect 50% of the equity in the event of a split. Not a great deal for him.

It's easy to say what we would do when looking from the outside in. In his position, I would do what he is doing. If I were you I would leave the relationship. You want different things.

She can’t get a tenancy agreement when she’s not a tenant. She can’t even be a lodger if they share a bedroom and she doesn’t have her own room.

Even a lodger agreement would give her very little security - just a right to some reasonable notice when he evicts her.

Your T-I-C arrangement (as has been suggested by PPs) is the obvious solution to OP's issue. It doesn't matter that your share is 90% versus your DP's 10% if that fairly reflects your respective financial investments, but what it does do is give you both a vested interest in the property and make you feel like committed co-owners. Great decision! 😃

It hasn't been a waste from the sound of it - the OP seems like she is in a much better situation emotionally and financially. But I do agree that she now needs to look at her future realistically and not take any risks with her security.

His council tax and bills will actually INCREASE if she moves out.

ATM he pays 50% of the CT, then he will have to pay 75% ( single person discount).

Set bills like the Wi-Fi and contents insurance - he now pays 50% , then he will have to pay 100%.

Variable bills like gas and electric - they won’t go down by that much because she moves out - maybe 10% . Now he pays 50%, then he will pay 90%.

Thats how SHE has been saving him money over the last 4 years, it works both ways .

Not only did he not marry you in 4 years, but he wants you to be a rando, i.e. a paying tenant? If we call things the names they represent, things become clearer. You wasted 4 years of your life. Wake up!

Yes, it was me that asked OP if her DP is expecting her to start paying rent now, or, say, in five years time when he proposes to upsize - unfortunately OP hasn't answered this question.