To not want to be DP’s tenant?

If you read the post properly you'd see they're in their 40s, won't ever marry or have kids.

You’d have to pay bills and food wherever you lived-you haven’t had to pay rent

You are in your 40s, so please seriously consider your own financial security.
If you are sharing costs by continuing to live with him in a new place, are these at a comparable level to living independently? Or do you both benefit equally from the arrangement - or just him..? There are some hard questions to ask/consider.
You say you can't afford to buy on your own, but could you increase your savings and pension?

Why? You don't have to be equal. You can ringfence whatever you put in and just get proportional shares of any increase

Though that doesn't sound like a loving relationship

@barhumbug Are you planning marriage? Children? A proper future?

We should also remember that it was an inheritance that helped him pay off his mortgage. If only OP could be that lucky.

In his position and given his past) I wouldn’t want anyone having a claim to my home either. Once burnt and all that.

Thing is, some of us have been through trying to sell a property when you own as tenants in common and it can be an absolute nightmare. It was the first thing I made clear to my new partner- I would never buy a property together outside of marriage.

I owned with my ex- he owned 10%, it was all "fair" as you suggest. It took 18 months to sell because he wanted to over-price the property, messed up viewings, turned down offers and delayed paperwork. All the while living in a property where I paid most of the bills. Yes he only walked away with his financial share, but for 18 months after the relationship ended I remained financially supporting him.

i actually think the uneven splits are really dangerous for the higher % owner compared to a 50:50 split- which is much less risky.

He’s not though.

OP says he could afford it but it would be a stretch.

Obviously OP being there would make it more comfortable, but it doesn’t sound like he’s relying on her at all, which is only right.

OP in the short term you need a tenancy agreement so he can’t kick you out onto the street with no notice. That’s the very least you’d have in a private tenancy. You also need to address the issue of what happens if he dies before you. Would you be homeless?

It sounds like you want different relationships. He wants a live-in girlfriend with no commitment. You want, at the very least, a partner (it sounds to me as though if he wanted to get married you’d be up for that too).

I was your DP in this situation. Am now tenants in common with my DP, with me owning 90%. I did it because I didn't want him to feel like he was living in my house, and I didn't want a power imbalance in our relationship - I know 90% is a huge stake in my favour, but it only becomes an issue if we break up and I'm not anticipating this. I'd be asking yourself how committed your DP actually is, and why he's expecting you to split up. His current plan is unfair.

No he doesn’t. He could get a genuine lodger and charge them fair room rent.

She needs him for housing more than he needs her.

Please don’t go along with this arrangement any longer. Imagine yourself at 60/65, wanting to retire and your ‘DP’ splits up with you. You’ll have nothing to your name and will be starting over. If he can’t commit properly and make sure you’re future is also financially secure, even without marriage, it is not a good relationship.

He does need OP’s permission if he’s relying on her “rent” to pay the new mortgage and the increased living costs of living in the more expensive area.

just to follow up on something a pp said, he isn’t expecting you to pay extra now and for the next 5 years so that he can save for the new house?

assuming that’s not the case, tell him your plan is to start saving as much as you can now towards the new house. In five years time you can make a decision together and If he decides he doesn’t want to include you in any way on the mortgage then you can then use your savings as a deposit for a small flat.

For me it comes down to a very simple question: are both parties benefiting financially in more or less equal terms (doesn't have to exactly the same, but in terms of the value of the benefit).

So, if he wants you to continue to live in his house and pay "rent" so that you had zero claim on the property, over the life of your relationship he would be continuing to build assets and you would not.

However, if you agreed that the "rent" you pay would be quite low, in order to accomodate you being able to continue to accumulate assets of your own albeit in line with your earnings vs what you'd accumulate as a "couple" - savings, investment or even a buy-to-let property that was cheap enough for you to afford to buy - then that would be probably be fine.

The other issue is that this is your home. So whether you're a tenant or an owner, are you going to have a say in decoration? How changes are made etc? Becuase that's a key factor too.

I don't blame him for wanting to protect what is his, been there done that, and would not give away half of my house again... But I also understand your need to feel like it is your home that you can make decisions on and buy things for.

however, I do think that he needs to take a leap and move on, so you should buy together, so that it is considered equally your home. You put in deposits that you can afford, you then pay the mortgage 50/50 which builds up each of your share in it. or you own it in the ratio of the deposits and pay the mortgage accordingly in the same ratio you could save money separately and every time a re-mortgage is due, you pay off a lump sum that increases your deposit and share.

You should each ring fence your deposit as PP have suggested so that both of you always get back your original investment. That would be fair.

I do get it, i really do. And I hope you have security and love from now on. But I can totally see his side. And as someone who was in his position, married someone far less well off than myself, and losing a huge amount of money and security because of it, I regret trusting him, I regret letting him in, and wish I had had the foresight to do what your guy is doing. Your way means if things do go pear-shaped, he has to sell up, unless he is able to buy you out.

Small point: the OP didn't "use" her DP to get out of debt.

She met him when she was at a low point and had been left with debt from an abusive marriage. Her DP knew this at the start and has watched her pay off the debt and pull herself up into a position in which she has savings, while paying her contribution to bills/food/living costs.

Yes, this is easier to do with reduced living costs, and his ownership of his own place removed the financial pressure of a private rent. He has been sentient and financially competent enough to buy and fully pay off his house. I think we can assume that he made the deicison to not charge rent with the full facts and open eyes.

In the meantime, he has had a live-in partner with all the comfort, connection and support that comes from that. Relationships are supposed to be mutually beneficial and I assume that her DP was not just housing OP so she cold sort her finances out.

That period of OP's life has passed, she has got savings and they have now been together 4 years. It is NORMAL to want the situation to evolve. Proposing proprtional ownership of a shared property is entirely reasonable at this stage.

It's not normal for him to refuse your financial input into the home you clearly share and live in together. I guess you can't exactly force him but you're right to worry.
If you're paying as a tenant then you'd be better off just being a genuine tenant in your own one bed or even bedsit. At least then you could choose things and have private space. Why should you help pay his mortgage (not that he has one anymore) and have nothing to show for it. He can get a lodger if he wants money towards his house.

So he wants you to be his lodger? I take it you will have your own room then and behave as a lodger would, ie own cooking, washing and not having sex with the homeowner?

Say for example his house sells for £150k and he has a £50k deposit and we buy a place for £300k. I’ll put in £10k deposit and we split the mortgage 50/50 so if we split he’d get £200k plus 50% of whatever equity whilst I’d get £10k plus 50% of equity.

Why would he get £200k if he put in £50k?
Why would you only have £10k to contribute after a further 5 years paying no rent? It’s very possible he sees you as a financial liability, you came with huge debts and even with minimal outgoings have really low saving aspirations.

hmm, you were able to clear your debts and start saving because he allowed you to live rent free. Would you be in the same position if you were renting somewhere? if he still decides to stretch himself he doesn't really need your permission. Without you his council tax and all bills will drop so financially it's not such a huge deal for him.

I'm sorry but I think you're very unreasonable.

I would also be concerned if I was in your situation, as you'll be helping him accumulate a valuable asset while getting nothing back for yourself. Yes it's been great that being with him has enabled you to get out of debt and accumulate some savings, but long term, what is your plan? It does sound like he's not necessarily seeing your relationship as a permanent fixture in his life. Not sure what the answer is here, because if you split up with him you'll have to rent anyway, but the proposed situation is also (gently) raising red flags for me.

I think he's being sensible. Why go into all these legal arrangements and then have to sell if you split up? That's also a massive pain even if he holds onto his share.

He doesn't want to get married, you're not a tenant and don't even have the rights of a tenant. You're an "excluded occupier" - essentially a guest that can be kicked out with no notice. Why should you have any rights to his house?

I’ve accepted this as I understand you can still be committed without marriage.

Perhaps (I'm not sure sure about that anyway tbh) but this man certainly isn't.

There's no way I'd stay in this situation.